Standing Committee A

[Mr. Nigel Beard in the Chair]

Traffic Management Bill

Clause 2 - Designation of traffic officers

Amendment moved [this day]: No. 89, in 
page 2, line 10, leave out 'individuals as'.—[John Thurso.]

Nigel Beard: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
 Amendment No. 3, in 
page 2, line 10, leave out from 'officers;' to end of line 11.
 Amendment No. 28, in 
page 2, line 11, leave out 'another person' and insert 'the Highways Agency'.
 Amendment No. 4, in 
page 2, line 18, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.
 Amendment No. 91, in 
page 2, line 20, leave out subsections (5) and (6).
 Amendment No. 29, in 
page 2, line 28, at end insert— 
 '(8) No traffic officer shall be designated unless he is the holder of a current valid driving licence and has been the subject of a check with the Criminal Records Bureau.'.
 New clause 17—Duty to consult— 
'In monitoring and evaluating the work and effectiveness of traffic officers, the appropriate national authority shall establish and consult with an advisory group comprising such members as may be considered appropriate.'.

Greg Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Beard. Before I move to my point of order, welcome to the Chair.

David Jamieson: Very chummy.
Mr. Knight: That may be the Minister's job, but I am sure that he can associate himself with my remarks.
 After this morning's sitting, I left the parliamentary estate. On returning, with a large pile of luggage, I was alarmed to discover that Bridge street was closed, Parliament square appeared to be closed and the Carriage Gates were closed. The police appear to have lost control of what is a minor demonstration outside. Clearly there has been a breach of our Sessional Orders. I wish that you had the power to order the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to attend on us to give an explanation, Mr. Beard. He clearly needs the help of some traffic officers. In the absence of that power, Mr. Beard, I should be grateful if you would pass on Opposition Members' concerns to the Speaker in the hope that he will speak to the commissioner to prevent that from happening again.

Nigel Beard: That is not a point of order for the Chair, but I will pass the message on to the Speaker.

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Beard. Either I owe you an apology for taking my jacket off, or you will give me retrospective permission to do so. I am very nervous about that. You have been in the Chair before when I have raised this point, having been told off once by one of your colleagues, I want to be sure that I am in order.

Nigel Beard: Yes, certainly, hon. Members may take their jackets off.

David Jamieson: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Beard. I have had the pleasure of being under your chairmanship in the past, and I fully associate myself with the comments of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight).
 This morning's proceedings were exceedingly amicable. The only differences seemed to be between Conservative Members, often involving the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who has disappeared; I do not know what they have done to him over lunchtime, but there was clearly some difference of view this morning. 
 On the point of order made by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, I am afraid that even if traffic officers were in place, they would not bring a lot of solace in such a scenario because they will operate not on local roads, but on motorways and national roads. Of course, they will not deal with crowd control either. 
 Amendment No. 89 would remove the reference to powers being granted by designation to individuals.

David Wilshire: I understand the Minister's point about traffic officers and local roads, but my understanding of the arguments used on Second Reading is that one objective of introducing traffic officers is to remove obstructions and thus help the freer flow of traffic. A student sitting down in a demonstration is undoubtedly an obstruction. Would traffic officers not be able to move that sort of obstruction?

David Jamieson: That is an interesting point. I think that we had debris in mind, not human obstructions. I suspect that any human obstructions on the motorway would, I am sad to say, be taken away by ambulance. The Bill is not intended to deal with demonstrations on motorways; I am not aware of such a demonstration in the past 20 years.

David Wilshire: A rhinoceros certainly once caused an obstruction on the M25, in my constituency. I appreciate that that was not a student, but a point could still be made on that.
 The Minister has indicated that there is a flaw in the legislation: he has not considered human beings. Will the Minister revisit the relevant parts of the Bill and table an amendment, or should we table it for him, either now or on Report? By coincidence, a serious point may have arisen.

David Jamieson: The word ''obstruction'' would eventually have to be defined, probably by a court. Traffic officers will be able to move an obstruction. I am not sure whether they would be able to cope with a rhinoceros; that remains to be seen.
 On amendment No. 89, we believe that it is essential for designation to be specific to an individual, not to an office holder or an organisation. That will promote transparency and direct accountability in the exercise of special powers by a traffic officer. The next three amendments seek to achieve similar things, or are coterminous with each other. Amendment No. 3—the one from which the right hon. Member for Wokingham dissociated himself this morning in what the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), called a vicious attack on his own Front Bench; I would not call it quite that—seeks to remove the power for an appropriate national authority to authorise another person to designate individuals as traffic officers. That would impede the national authority in contracting out the traffic officer service. 
 There was some discussion this morning about privatisation. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said that he was very much in favour of it. He should not get too excited; while I believe that private services can be run in certain circumstances, I am sad to disappoint him and glad to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) that this is not a matter of privatisation. There could be circumstances in which the traffic officer service could be contracted out but that is not expected to happen in the first instance. We want the service to be run by the Highways Agency. However, in certain circumstances, it may be appropriate to contract out certain specific duties.

David Wilshire: I am interested because the Minister is suggesting that there is a distinction between privatisation and contracting out. Could he clarify that, because in my dictionary privatising means handing a public service over to be run by the private sector, and contracting out means handing a public service over to be run by the private sector. Is there a point that I have missed?

David Jamieson: Yes, there is. The Highways Agency currently contracts certain work to contractors. They work for it, but they are not running the service or in charge of the piece of road; they are performing certain services on the Agency's behalf. It is not intended that those services be run other than by the Highways Agency, but there might be circumstances in which we would want flexibility.

John Mann: Are there any circumstances in which, owing to this clause, a private contractor would be able to pursue debts owed by any citizen through any courts, and, if so, through which courts?

David Jamieson: No. I was coming to that. This is the Dick Turpin clause that was referred to this morning. My hon. Friend asked whether contractors could harass people with fines. They could not, because, as we found out earlier, no fines would be imposed by the traffic officers, and they would not therefore be enforcing them. The only circumstances in which that might happen would be if the traffic officers had agreed a charge for a service with another party; then they would have some way of enforcing the charge if it
 was not paid, a point to which we shall come later in the Bill. They would not have such powers in relation to the public.
 It might be appropriate for people to be specifically trained to carry out a function on a certain part of a motorway or major trunk road network, such as a particular crossing or bridge. A separate group would operate there. At the moment, we expect that function to be operated by the Highways Agency, not by a contractor.

John Thurso: The Minister said that the duties must be specific to a person. I certainly accept that. Then he said that certain circumstances and duties—he has just touched on one—might be contracted out. Are there any other circumstances in which the traffic officer posts would need to be contracted out?

David Jamieson: This is a case of leaving a small amount of flexibility. We are creating a new service, and it is no secret that we will be learning as we go along. Expertise is being built up. We will learn a lot from the police service when the service is rolled out in the midlands this year, so that we can carry out the process of rolling it out through the rest of the country. Should the Welsh Assembly want to roll out the service in Wales, it will possibly consider the English experience.
 Once we have some experience, we may wish to attend to some small issues, but I think that they will be on the margins. Many years from now, we may decide that it is more appropriate to contract out some parts of the service. I certainly do not have anything specific in mind at the moment, and my general feeling is that we would not contract out any services at all for the first few years, while we are settling down. If we did, they would be very specific, and there would have to be good reasons to do so. We would have to guarantee that we were getting the best service, that it was thoroughly checked and that the people operating it were doing so to the high standard we will expect from all the officers, and the Bill allows for that.

Paul Marsden: That point was highlighted by the Select Committee on Transport on page 4 of its report on the Bill, its first report of Session 2003–04. It stated:
''We would like to know why the Government thinks it is appropriate that traffic officers should be employed by contractors.''
 I hear what the Minister is saying, but it is vague and woolly, and he does not seem to be being specific about why contractors would be required. He says that that could be the case in several years time. I understand the need for flexibility, but would the Minister at least be willing to write to Committee members following the initial studies to explain the circumstances he envisages following initial trials of the new system and to explain further the circumstances under which contractors could be used.

David Jamieson: I do not think that I was woolly; I thought that I was quite clear. I said that we saw the Highways Agency employing the traffic officers directly. However, we have left a little flexibility in case there are circumstances in which we find that a contractor could operate a part of the service. That
 leaves some leeway for the Welsh Assembly, which may have a different view from us and the Highways Agency. It is free to hold such a view, of course. The Welsh Assembly may decide that it is more appropriate to contract out partial services in parts of Wales. That is a matter for it, but we are leaving a little bit of flexibility in case it should wish to do so.
 I will be quite unambiguous; I want traffic officers to be employed directly by the Highways Agency, certainly in the early years of their operation. I cannot envisage any circumstances at the moment under which they would be contracted out. However, it makes good sense to leave flexibility in primary legislation because, as I said to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), we are on a learning curve and we do not want to have closed the door if circumstances change.

Paul Marsden: My point was that when we have gone up that learning curve, will the Minister be prepared to write back to Members and raise the issue again in Parliament to state precisely the circumstances in which contractors would be used? Would he be prepared to come back to Parliament and write to Members to explain?

David Jamieson: If that should occur during the course of the Bill and while it progresses towards Royal Assent, should it reach that stage, we would of course write to Members. At this stage, however, I see no circumstances under which I would do so.
 I should tell the hon. Gentleman that the policing of the Dartford tunnel, for example, is carried out by a contracted-out organisation, and it is done effectively with no particular problems. The people who operate the Dartford tunnel have a specific duty on a specific piece of road, and they are trained in the specifics of that job. [Interruption.] I mention tunnels, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) twitches. I do not know why; perhaps we have discussed tunnels before. 
 Amendment No. 91 appears to be consequential on the previous amendment, No. 3. Amendment No. 28 in effect replaces a reference to third party service providers with a reference to the Highways Agency, and it has the same effect as amendment No. 3. Since the Highways Agency does not exist in law as such, that would enable the Secretary of State to designate himself. The Highways Agency traffic management remit is to be expanded under its new role as a network operator. Traffic officers in England will be designated by the Secretary of State and will be employees of the Highways Agency. I repeat: there are no plans to do otherwise. 
 There are good reasons for that. The Government are keen to influence the development of the new role and believe that best practice is for delivery, responsibility, accountability and risk to sit with the Highways Agency. Both the agency and the police agree. However, we wish to retain the flexibility of considering the option of employing contractors, but only where that is thought to offer clear value and benefits to road users without undermining the integrity of the service.

Greg Knight: Does the Minister agree that Parliament should be told if the Government have a change of heart? Although there are no current plans to employ people in the way he described, will he give the Committee an undertaking that if he changes his view, he will at the very least issue a written statement, so that the change is recorded in Hansard?

David Jamieson: I know that when politicians say that there are no current plans, they mean that they going to do something tomorrow rather than today. However, that is not the case for contractors. If as the Bill progresses through Parliament we foresee any circumstance in which contracting out might be an option, we will inform hon. Members, either through proceedings in Parliament or through a statement. However, that is probably well down the line. Parliament would be informed in any appropriate way if any change was made, and that would happen within the law as it would then stand. If the Bill receives Royal Assent in its current form, Parliament would be informed.
 We are back to Tom, Harry and Dick Turpin. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) asked whether anyone could set up such a service, and the answer is no. Anybody offering a service must, like those in the Dartford tunnel, be properly trained before they do the work. 
 Amendment No. 4 would ensure that traffic officer designation would be for a fixed rather than an indefinite period that could be terminated at any time. The hon. Member for Spelthorne spoke on that amendment, which is unnecessary, because it would limit the options for designating traffic officers. The Bill allows for fixed term designations, but does not require them. A fixed term designation would increase the administration involved, because, unless a traffic officer proved unsuitable for the task, he would have to be redesignated when the existing fixed term expired. That would involve more unnecessary bureaucracy.

David Wilshire: I understand the Minister's point, but not his logic. If the fixed term designation of officers is bureaucratic and unnecessary, why is he leaving open the possibility that it could happen? If the idea is bad, we should remove the whole provision, but if the idea is sensible, we should adopt it. The Minister is dismissing my argument but retaining the option.

David Jamieson: We are saying that a person would be designated until they were found to be unsuitable. It is important to have that flexibility. There may be reasons to designate someone for a particular period, but we do not want any unnecessary or unreasonable bureaucracy.
 I was almost entirely in accord with what the hon. Member for Christchurch said about amendment No. 29, which is about security checks and how traffic officers are recruited. We want people who are fit and proper persons to carry out the job, and that will be ascertained during the recruitment process. 
 The Highways Agency is in the process of registering with the Criminal Records Bureau. The 
 Agency wants to ensure that information about current and spent convictions, and cautions, reprimands and warnings held on the police national computer can be obtained on a candidate traffic officer. The legislation need not expressly state that a check must be carried out with the Bureau, nor is it considered necessary to state in legislation that designation cannot be given unless a valid current driving licence is held. A driving licence check would form part of the process of recruitment and appointment. The hon. Gentleman read out part of the advertisement for the post, which says that a driving licence is required. A clean driving licence is required for those on the road, and they will be checked for criminal records. These jobs will be quite sensitive. Officers could be dealing with people late at night, who are vulnerable at the side of the road. We want to check very carefully that the people we recruit are of the very highest quality and meet the highest standards. A few of those employed may have to be security checked as well, but I will not go into too much detail on that, for obvious reasons.

Greg Knight: The Minister is probably as aware as I am of the recent confusion with regard to the Soham murder case, when the police did not pass on certain information, which many think they should have done. The reason given was the Data Protection Act 1998. Given the confusion that clearly exists because of other statutory duties, it would make sense to make provision in the Bill, so that no one could say that it was silent on the issue and that there might be a conflict with another statute. Would the best way forward not be for the Minister were to accept amendment No. 29, or to redraft something along similar lines?

David Jamieson: We are very much aware of the Soham situation. The whole system is under review. We are absolutely determined that the information that we find out about traffic officers is as full as possible, and that it contains previous convictions and warnings that people may have had. Officers will be in a very special position. They could be dealing with people in vehicles who are vulnerable, perhaps on a one-to-one basis, and possibly late at night. We want to make sure that checks are carried out. I am not sure that putting that into the Bill takes us any further forward, but I can absolutely assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will seek checks at the very highest levels possible on traffic officers.

Brian White: Given the controversy over the Data Protection Act 1998, much of which is ill informed, can my hon. Friend assure me that we will not throw the baby out with the bath water, and go back to the problems that we had with people's access to their own personal details, as used to happen? The Act is a very good safeguard for individuals whose details are in official records.

David Jamieson: I take my hon. Friend's point, although the matter is beyond the scope of my powers. I know that these things are being closely looked at, and that we all—the police, the Home
 Office and us—are concerned that what we do find out is the proper and appropriate information on the people who will perform the job of traffic officer. I take great personal interest in this point, because it is an issue of great importance. Apart from training, we have to have people who are of the highest quality. They must be capable not just of doing the job, but of being trusted.
 New clause 17, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White), would impose a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to set up an advisory group to monitor traffic officers' work. The introduction of a traffic officer service is a profound change in the way in which the road network will be operated. I am sure that hon. Members recognise the need for various stakeholders to be involved, in addition to the Highways Agency, and the valuable contribution that they can make to the development and operation of the service. 
 It will probably be helpful for my hon. Friend to know that in developing the traffic officer service, the Highways Agency has consulted, and will continue to consult, a range of stakeholders and will seek to make full use of the operational experience of many organisations. In addition, the agency liaises regularly with a number of representative bodies, such as the Motorists Forum, which does a good job, and is viewed by the agency as a useful and knowledgeable contact group. 
 The Highways Agency also has a range of performance indicators to enable it to monitor the service, which is essential in ensuring its effectiveness. However, I fail to see the need for the addition of an independent advisory group to monitor that performance. All the bodies that might take part in such a group are already fully engaged with the agency at all levels in talks and consultations. 
 I hope that my comments have covered the matters raised by the amendments, and that the Committee will resist them.

John Thurso: I associate myself, Mr. Beard, with the remarks made about your chairmanship.
 I fully accept that amendments Nos. 89 and 91 are not the most elegant way to achieve the ends that we seek. However, we sought to leave in as much of the Bill as possible, while achieving those ends. Amendment No. 3 is more elegant and, having listened to the arguments, I would be more prepared to support that than my own amendment. 
 Two points of principle are involved in the amendments. The first is whether one feels that contracting out or privatisation should take place at all. My hon. Friends and I believe that any major shift of government employees from the public to the private sector should be considered by Parliament in some way. Secondly, even if one is in favour of privatisation or contracting out, it should occur as a result of a positive decision by Parliament or Ministers. In the clause, that power is reserved to the Minister; he will decide whether to make a statement. The Minister graciously said that, in that eventuality, he would make such a statement, but secondary 
 legislation, or possibly a sunset clause, might be ways of dealing with the matter. 
 We are creating a force of people who, to some extent, are quasi-police and who will undertake certain duties currently performed by the police. Having listened carefully to what the Minister said—I shall certainly study it again in Hansard—we will probably wish to return to the matter if the Committee does not take a positive decision on some of the other amendments. If the hon. Member for Christchurch were to push amendments Nos. 28 and 29 to a vote, we would be happy to support him.

Christopher Chope: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Beard. I thank the Minister for his thorough response to an excellent debate on this group of amendments.
 The Minister concedes that amendment No. 29 contains nothing that the Government find objectionable, but says that he does not think that including it in the Bill would take matters any further. However, he is not prepared to say including it would make the Bill any worse. The Government say that they do not want to do anything too quickly, but that they have an open-ended commitment to possible contractorisation of the Highways Agency in the future. In that context, we should put the safeguard provided by amendment No. 29 in the Bill. 
 The points made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw in the earlier debate about problems with civil enforcement officers suggest that when we discuss that part of the Bill it may be appropriate to include other safeguards. I hope that what the Minister said today will be an important precedent when we consider that. 
 With regard to amendment No. 28, I was interested that the Minister fell back on the statement that the Highways Agency has no separate, corporate personality and is ultimately none other than the Secretary of State himself. That leads me to say that the Bill presents an opportunity to change that. The Highways Agency is effectively a public corporation with many assets that it manages and for which it is responsible. If people want to sue it, they should be able to sue it as a corporate entity rather than having to sue the Secretary of State. 
 Similarly, if people want to make a bequest to the Highways Agency—perhaps because of some fine work carried out by traffic officers—they should be able to make it to the Highways Agency specifically, rather than that money going into the Department for Transport's coffers. I do not believe that the Minister's arguments about the Highways Agency negate the value of limiting clause 2 to the Highways Agency at present. If, in due course, there is a proposal to extend the role of traffic officers beyond the Highways Agency, Parliament should have a chance to consider it. 
 The Minister is saying that he thinks that change should be made by ministerial fiat without even a regulation being passed. There might be a statement by way of a written answer, but that is not an adequate 
 safeguard. There is so much sensitivity about the issue that if there is to be an extension beyond the Highways Agency into the contractorised sector, Parliament should be able to have greater scrutiny; that is what amendment No. 28 seeks to achieve.

John Thurso: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 28, in 
page 2, line 11, leave out 'another person' and insert 'the Highways Agency'.—[Mr. Chope.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 7.

Question accordingly negatived.

Brian White: I beg to move amendment No. 144, in
page 2, line 27, at end add— 
 '(7A) The appropriate national authority will draw up, in consultation, such training programmes as may be considered appropriate.'.
The original draft of the amendment mentioned the appropriate nautical authority. I am glad to see that that has been corrected, but that lets me make the point that those who look after our shipping lanes would not consider anything other than ensuring that all agencies involved are properly trained and that the interaction between them works. There are constant exercises to ensure that training involving those agencies reaches the highest level.
 The aim of the amendment is to respond to concerns about the training of the proposed traffic officers, the extent to which they will be trained in network management and crash investigation and the extent to which they will be able to interact with other agencies; the sort of points that were made this morning. Training is implicit in the Bill, and I note the Minister's comments in reply to a couple of debates this morning about training. There is, however, no guarantee about the sorts of consultations that there will be or what they will include. Nor is there a guarantee that they will not be silo-based and relate only to traffic officers, but will extend to other agencies. 
 I am particularly concerned about that overlapping of training, perhaps because of my background as a systems analyst when I advised companies on how to set up structures. I have seen so many projects founder either because training was seen as an add-on or because it was the first thing to be cut from the budget when the budget overran. It is not seen as central to the implementation of a project, which is why I am concerned. 
 My other query is about how concerns about safety issues and the way in which traffic officers are operating are fed back into the training process. The Minister will be happy to hear that I am not going to press my amendment to a vote, but will he respond to the fears to which it relates? There are several concerns in the outside world, which the Minister should address.

David Jamieson: I notice that my hon. Friend said ''nautical''. I have other responsibilities for sea matters, and I wondered if there was something that I had not noticed when carrying them out. He makes a good point, and he is right to say that traffic officers need a substantial amount of quality training. We are aware of that. We know that traffic officers will not be instantaneously fully trained and able to carry out their full role as soon as they are appointed, but they will need quite a long lead-in period to familiarise themselves with the job, to be trained appropriately and to get some experience on the road. Even after the Bill has received Royal Assent, I suspect that it will be some time before we have people with a modicum of training who are formally carrying out their duties.
 I assure my hon. Friend that the traffic officers will go through the most thorough and carefully devised comprehensive training programme. The Police Skills and Standards Organisation will set up the occupational standards to ensure the full accreditation of the training. The programme will be regularly reviewed and carefully evaluated to ensure that it is effective and efficient and, most importantly, that it will produce the right calibre of officer. Training is as vital as checking criminal records and the backgrounds of people taking on the job. Again, the traffic officers will be dealing with the public, sometimes in sensitive situations and in situations that could be extremely dangerous. They will sometimes be expected to act in circumstances in which they will be putting their lives at risk. Sadly, there is quite a casualty rate among contractors who already work on our motorways. The fact that they are on the road is of sufficient concern. I assure my hon. Friend that these issues are at the forefront of our mind.

Greg Knight: The Opposition largely agree with the Minister about this matter. He referred to traffic officers having to deal with the public. Clearly, they will need training to do so. Once the traffic officer is trained, does the Minister envisage that the officer, like a police constable, will be expected to carry and maintain a notebook?

David Jamieson: That will be in the protocols that will be arranged for the traffic officers, who will work closely with the police. I will certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's point. I certainly expect them to keep a log of their daily activities, and I am informed that part of their record will involve keeping a regular log. It may be different from the log kept by a police constable. Nevertheless, they will have to record their activities during the day. Just to wrap up the point, as they get more practice on the road, they will improve their skills in liaison with the police and there will be a gradual movement of responsibilities from the police to traffic officers. There will be joint exercises and training with the police. We shall also work with the maintaining agents In some cases, local authorities carry out some of the work on the national road network. All those people will be involved in the training process. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend some reassurance.

Brian White: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 29, in 
page 2, line 28, at end insert— 
 '(8) No traffic officer shall be designated unless he is the holder of a current valid driving licence and has been the subject of a check with the Criminal Records Bureau.'.—[Mr. Chope.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 7.

Question accordingly negatived.

Nigel Beard: The Question is that clause 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Beard. Did I hear the words ''as amended''? If I did, I am delighted.

Nigel Beard: I beg the Committee's pardon. The Question is that clause 2 stand part of the Bill.
 Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Jurisdiction of traffic officers

David Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in
page 2, line 30, leave out from 'has' to 'jurisdiction' in line 36.
 Normally, Whips are delighted when all their troops appear. However, as the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham is attached to the amendment and I might once again have to plead guilty, perhaps it would have been better if he had arrived after I moved it. We do not want a rerun of the little difficulty that I ran into this morning, but I thought that I would get the apology in before it was necessary, just in case. 
 This morning, under amendment No. 1 to clause 1, we debated whether we should leave out subsection (2)(b). I am tempted to say that this is another ''To be or not to be'' debate, because it involves the same sort of principle. Amendment No. 5 addresses clause 3. Subsection (1) states: 
''A traffic officer has jurisdiction''
 and specifies where the traffic officer has jurisdiction. However, the bottom of the subsection states 
''unless his designation provides that this subsection does not apply to him.''
 Subsection (2) states: 
''If subsection (1) does not apply . . . he has jurisdiction only over such relevant roads, or relevant roads of such descriptions, as may be specified in his designation.''
 The Minister argued earlier for clarity, lack of bureaucracy, brevity and all the other things for which Ministers of all political persuasions argue. He now has an opportunity to show whether he means it. The clause contains two provisions, one of which is 
 necessary; the other, by definition, is not. The traffic officer has jurisdiction over what is referred to in either subsection 3(1) or 3(2), but not both. If the Minister wants the traffic officer to have general powers, why does he not say that? I am offering him an opportunity to clarify the situation. Does he mean that traffic officers have jurisdiction 
''only over such relevant roads . . . as may be specified'',
 or general jurisdiction? 
 The Minister is looking puzzled, and although I do not like to repeat myself, I will try again. Subsection (1) provides that the traffic officer has jurisdiction over only any relevant road, while subsection (2) refers to any road ''as may be specified''. I do not see the need for both provisions, as one or the other will do. I took potluck and proposed to delete subsection (1), but I am not wedded to that. If the Minister agreed to delete subsection (2), I would be happy, but I do not see why we need both.

David Jamieson: I was not puzzled; I was concentrating carefully on what the hon. Gentleman was saying. He said that his amendment would abbreviate the clause, and I would be happy if we could find some way of abbreviating the Bill without changing its effect. Brevity can be a virtue.
 However, the original wording is safer because the policy behind the clause is that traffic officers should generally have jurisdiction over the entire national network, with flexibility reserved to limit that in certain cases, some of which we discussed earlier. The amendment would mean that the wording would not unambiguously correspond to that policy or make it clear that there is contemplated a designation applying across the entire national network. It would also carry the additional administrative implication that all designations would have to identify geographic extent expressly and that service managers would have to check officers' designations before deployment around the network more often than would otherwise be the case.

David Wilshire: That is fascinating, but I do not buy into the Minister's argument. He suggests that there should be flexibility but does not offer a shred of evidence for why he needs it or to what it might amount. If I heard him correctly, he argued that there should be two sorts of traffic officers, some having a designation on specified roads and others having a designation on any road. Should we take it that there will be two sorts of traffic officer in the name of flexibility? If that is what the Minister wants us to accept, he owes us a justification.

David Jamieson: As I said, the intention is that a traffic officer would be designated over the whole of the national network, whether that is England or Wales. However, there may be certain circumstances in which someone could be designated to a specific part of the network, which is why we believe that the flexibility is necessary. I gave the example of the Dartford tunnel, and the same might apply to a part of the road or network if we believe that it is appropriate. We believe that such flexibility is required.

David Wilshire: That does not really persuade me, but I understand the Minister's point. The good news for him is that I accept his second argument, even though I do not accept his first. His point about having to check Fred's designation on every occasion rings true. My constituency almost contains a bit of the M4, but it includes the end of the M3 and the M25, and I can see the difficulty with an officer being designated to the M25 but not the M3. I accept that having to check which motorway an officer is supposed to work on every time he is sent out would be too much. It is a valid argument against the amendment.

David Jamieson: I want to add a little more. The provision offers flexibility in the phasing in of traffic officers. I said earlier that we were trialling this in the west midlands. It is an extensive area, but traffic officers will initially be restricted to those roads only and may not go outside the area. That gives us that little flexibility as we roll out the introduction of traffic officers throughout the country.

David Wilshire: I still do not buy the flexibility argument, but I do buy the argument about not always having to look up exactly where. I accept the second but not the first. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: I hope that this is an appropriate moment to raise a matter that arises from the note that the Minister kindly distributed about secondary legislation flowing from the Bill. He said in that note that one proposal to amend the Motorways Traffic (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 1982 was to
''allow traffic officers the same exemptions as the police currently hold in relation to the use of the hard shoulder, the discretionary power to direct others to the use of the hard shoulder and the stopping on a carriageway.''
 The note also states that 
''consultation will start after Royal Assent with expected introduction of Statutory Instrument by early summer 2005''.
 Will the Minister explain what will happen between now and then? Will he say why, contrary to indications given in previous Government statements, there are no proposals to extend the exemptions beyond traffic officers to the rescue and recovery services? If my memory serves me right, the Government stated in a White Paper on freeing up the highway that it was important that the rescue and recovery services should be able to use the hard shoulder to get to incidents. If the Minister is not equipped to answer the point now, I shall understand; we can discuss it later. It is an important question. It is not only about the use of the hard shoulder; it is also a practical question of how the new power for traffic officers can work effectively if they have to wait until the early summer of 2005 before being allowed access to the hard shoulder without the specific authority of a police officer. 
 The other question is less significant, but I would be grateful for the Minister's help.

Nigel Beard: Order. The points that the hon. Gentleman is making are covered in new clause 22. I suggest that we either debate the subject now or wait until we reach the new clause. Whichever is chosen, the debate will not be repeated.

Christopher Chope: I understand that we cannot have the same debate twice, but if the Minister can answer the point now, we can conclude the debate. If he cannot, we can come back to the point on new clause 22. That may give the Minister a good let out.

David Jamieson: I have never been let out of anything. The use of the hard shoulder is something that we allow reluctantly, because it clearly has to be done only by certain bodies and only in controlled circumstances. We will bring secondary legislation before the House of Commons by the early summer of 2005, but we certainly want to consult first. The use of the hard shoulder is generally allowed on a case-by-case basis. I do not have at my fingertips the regulations that apply to the other emergency services, although I can undertake to bring them to the Committee. I shall be happy to do that either at the next sitting or when we come to new clause 22. Rather than give a partial answer now, it may be best to provide a fuller answer later.

John Redwood: I would like to probe further on the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne. The case outlined in clause 3(2), in which the traffic officer has limited jurisdiction, is the difficult one. We must consider how a traffic officer's jurisdiction might be limited, and that people who must obey him might know that it is limited. It would be difficult if a traffic officer went to the scene of a problem and discovered that his designation did not go round the corner, where he might need to direct traffic. There would often be such border, or edge-of-area incidents.
 I am unhappy about limited jurisdictions. If a traffic officer is a liveried, trained, qualified person, he or she should have the power to operate wherever the need arises. If traffic officers have limited jurisdiction, would a driver be entitled to ask to see their papers before accepting direction? That could be an obstacle to the smooth progress of traffic. How easy would it be for them to prove that they have the necessary designation? Would they carry designation papers, a card, or a photo identity pass with their designated roads on a map on the back? If a motorist were unhappy at how a power was used, it would be reasonable for him or her to seek assurance that a traffic officer had that power. It would be better if traffic officers could act anywhere. Where they act could be limited by the day-to-day requirements placed on them by managers or directors, but they should be given general powers.

David Jamieson: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is our intention that traffic officers have powers over the whole network in a particular national authority, whether it is England or Wales. However, the right hon. Gentleman might have missed the earlier debate in which we discussed specific cases involving, for example, a tunnel, a bridge or a particular piece of road. In such cases, a traffic officer might be designated to work entirely on that
 piece of road. It is wise to maintain flexibility for such circumstances. I identified cases in which separate police forces operate. The Mersey tunnel is not on the national network but is policed by a separate police body, because it has specific difficulties and problems for which people are trained. There may be similar circumstances to that, but the general thrust of what the right hon. Member for Wokingham is saying is right.
 We would not want traffic officers to have to show people their papers to show where they were designated. That would be ridiculous and would undermine the operation of the service. In general, officers patrolling motorways and trunk roads would have the widespread job of covering the entire network. Specific officers working in an area would generally stay in their designated area, rather than being out on the open road. 
 Question put: That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Powers to direct traffic officers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Greg Knight: I am intrigued to know how the Minister views clause 4 in relation to clause 3 because there is a conflict between them. For example, suppose that a traffic officer, with limited jurisdiction, is carrying out his duties and is approached by a chief constable who says, ''Stop what you are doing over here and go to the other lane of the motorway'', and then gives him directions. Is the Minister saying that clause 4, which gives a police constable powers to direct a traffic officer, overrides that traffic officer's limited authority, or does clause 3 override clause 4 so that no matter what a traffic officer is directed to do by a constable, the traffic officer will act unlawfully if that direction is outwith his authority? I should be interested to know how the Minister envisages the two clauses working together. The common-sense view on how the two clauses ought to operate, which most of us would accept, is that if an experienced police constable feels that the traffic officer should be doing something slightly different, even if his authority does not extend to it, the police officer should be able to direct the traffic officer to do whatever he thinks is right in the circumstances. I hope
 that the Minister can assure us that clause 4 will widen the authority under clause 3.
 Does the Minister intend the clause to be as wide as it appears to be? We are all aware of the scenario in which we expect it to operate; that is, a uniformed officer assigned to traffic duties arrives on the scene of an accident or an area of congested traffic and instructs the traffic officer what to do. As worded, the clause refers only to the ''direction of a constable'': it does not have to be a constable in uniform. It could be a detective constable off duty on his way home. Does the Minister intend the clause to apply to any constable, even a constable not in uniform?

David Wilshire: I have been waiting ever since Second Reading to reach clause 4 because I was deeply wounded and mortified on that occasion. I intervened on the Secretary of State, who generously gave way. I said:
''The documents issued by the right hon. Gentleman say that the police will be in charge of the new officers. However, can he assure the House that if those traffic officers get to the scene first they will have to wait for the police to arrive, rather than act in their absence?''
 Had the Secretary of State known the totality of what was going on my mind at that moment, he would not have replied: 
''The police are not in charge of those officers, who are employed by the Highways Agency.''—[Official Report, 5 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 36.]
 That may or may not strike other members of this Committee as correct or incorrect, but I think that what I asked the Secretary of State was correct and justified, and his answer was, not to put too fine a point on it, in its totality, not all it should have been. I know that I cannot describe the point any more correctly than that, but I think that the Committee will get my drift. Clause 4 reads: 
''A traffic officer shall, when carrying out his duties, comply with any direction of a constable.''
 Perhaps I am a bit on the thick side, but I rather think that being told that one must comply with the directions of a constable means that one does what the constable says. That suggests that the constable is in charge of the traffic officer. I should be grateful if the Minister would say whether he supports the Secretary of State, who said that I was wrong, or his own Bill. He cannot support both.

David Jamieson: The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire asked whether a constable would need to be in uniform to give a direction to a traffic officer. It is my understanding that a constable is someone who is always on duty and who therefore could, in the appropriate circumstances, give that instruction at the site of an incident whether in uniform or not. If I am wrong on that, I am sure that somebody will correct me.
 Traffic officers will be employed by the Highways Agency and will work with all the training, protocols and job description set out by the agency. However, there must be clear protocols to govern how Highways Agency contractors assist the police at incidents on the road, as happens now. Two sets of people cannot be in charge at an incident. The clause ensures that a police constable is in charge at the incident and will instruct 
 the traffic officer, as appropriate. Traffic officers would not be under the control of the police in their general work, but where there is an interface between the two, the police constable has supremacy.

David Wilshire: I want to be clear that I caught the words of the Minister correctly. Did I hear him say that the constable will be ''in charge''? I think those are the words that Hansard will report. If he said that, why did the Secretary of State say that the police are not in charge of the officers?

David Jamieson: I know that the hon. Gentleman feels rather bruised about the way in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State put him right on Second Reading. I said that the constable will be in charge of the incident and would therefore, as appropriate, give any direction to the traffic officer at the site. As we discussed when the hon. Gentleman raised the issue earlier, if traffic officers arrived first, there would be clear lines of action for them to take, but when the police arrive, they take charge of the incident and will, in those circumstances, direct the traffic officers. Once the incident is closed, the traffic officers move off and continue in their own way, with their own chain of command, as is appropriate.

David Wilshire: Perhaps the Minister has a different clause 4 from mine. He is trying to wriggle by saying that the police will be in charge of the incident, but my version of subsection (1) says:
''A traffic officer shall, when carrying out his duties, comply with any direction of a constable.''
 The police are in charge of the traffic officer. The provisions say nothing about being in charge of the incident.

David Jamieson: The clause is intended for cases in which the police are working with traffic officers. In those circumstances the police officer could give directions to the traffic officer. For most of a traffic officer's general, day-to-day duties, the police would not be involved and there would be very little interface between the two.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - The special powers of a traffic officer

David Jamieson: I beg to move amendment No. 60, in
page 3, line 10, leave out '6' and insert 
 '(Powers to stop or direct traffic)'.

Nigel Beard: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 30, in 
page 3, leave out line 11.
 Amendment No. 6, in 
page 3, line 24, leave out 'or near'.
 Amendment No. 7, in 
page 3, leave out line 25.
 Amendment No. 8, in 
page 3, line 28, leave out from '3;' to end of line 34.
 Amendment No. 9, in 
page 3, line 35, at end insert 'full'.
 Clause stand part. 
 Amendment No. 92, in 
clause 6, page 3, line 38, leave out from 'officer' to end of line.
 Amendment No. 10, in 
clause 6, page 3, line 42, after first 'vehicle', insert 'or cycle'.
 Amendment No. 11, in 
clause 6, page 4, line 5, after 'vehicle', insert 'or cycle'.
 Amendment No. 32, in 
clause 6, page 4, line 8, leave out '163(1) and (2)' and insert 'section 163'.
 Clause 6 stand part. 
 Amendment No. 20, in 
clause 10, page 5, line 28, after 'in', insert 'full'.
 Government new clause 10—Powers to stop or direct traffic.

David Jamieson: This is a big group of amendments. We have become aware that the reference to section 163 in clause 6(3) is inconsistent with the reference in clause 6(4)(a). That error would inadvertently give traffic officers powers of arrest, as one of the earlier Conservative amendments would also have done. However, new clause 10 will address that issue by replacing clause 6, providing powers for traffic officers to stop or direct traffic. The new clause expressly sets out the powers and thus makes them more transparent. It sets out the appropriate textual amendments to the relevant statutory provisions, making it easier to see how those statutory provisions are affected and to understand their relationship to other provisions in road traffic statutes.
 New clause 10 also removes from traffic officers the power of arrest in section 163(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which provides that any reference to a constable in section 163 of that Act includes a reference to a traffic officer in clause 6(4)(a). That inadvertently gave traffic officers the power of arrest granted to constables in subsection section 163(4). Amendment No. 60 is consequential.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for that clear exposition of why the Government have had to withdraw clause 6 and replace it with a new clause, and of amendment No. 60. Before I tabled a parliamentary question inquiring what powers of arrest traffic officers would have, the Government had not realised that they would have had powers of arrest that they did not wish them to have under the original draft of the Bill.
 I have already indicated to you, Mr. Beard, and informally to the Minister that I will not be able to be present in Committee throughout this debate because an Adjournment debate that I called in Westminster Hall has been allocated the time between 4 o'clock and 4.30 pm, and if I am not there, I will not be able to argue about the problems of audiology services, particularly in my constituency. I hope that when I come back soon after 4.30 pm, the Minister will have been able to satisfy my hon. Friends in my absence 
 that the Government have thought through the contrast between the way that community support officers are being supported with a residual power of arrest that is not being given to traffic officers, even for a limited period in limited circumstances. 
 The Minister will know that community support officers have been given a power of arrest so that they can hold someone for up to half an hour pending the arrival of a police officer. A traffic officer might be the first on the scene of an incident on a motorway or trunk road and it might be obvious to him that somebody who has been driving a vehicle will not give his identity. Perhaps the officer suspects that he has stolen the vehicle or that he is an illegal immigrant; everyday occurrences, unfortunately, under the present Government. Is he really to stand idly by while the person concerned hops it over the motorway perimeter fence, pending the arrival of a police officer, or should he have the power, as a community support officer might do, to arrest somebody who does not give his name and address in circumstances in which the officer believes the person has committed an offence? 
 I put the question to the Minister because, unlike a town, city or village, a motorway is pretty inaccessible and police officers have to get access to the point at which the incident has taken place, which can take time. If the traffic officer were there already, would it not be sensible for him to have actual powers of arrest, albeit circumscribed? That is the main point that I wanted to get across in this group of amendments. The other amendments will be covered by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I am sure that when I return from having debated audiology services, an answer will be forthcoming from the Minister.

Paul Marsden: Amendment No. 92 was intended, like some of the Tory amendments, to clarify what was turning out to be a bit of a dog's breakfast of a clause. I am more than happy to lend support to new clause 10, although I should like clarification from the Minister about this point; the original wording makes reference to the Road Traffic Act 1988, section 35(1) and (2). That has changed to subsection (3). Was that what the Minister was referring to in his opening remarks about powers of arrest, or was it a different subsection? If so, could he clarify why the reference has changed from (1) and (2) to (3)?
 The other issue is that of powers. If we look at the layout of the Bill, there are special powers on top of powers such as those to stop and direct traffic. Later, we shall be talking about powers for temporary traffic signs and further special powers. It is mind-boggling to try to understand why the layout is so complicated. 
 Following earlier remarks about background checks during the recruitment process, what identification will the traffic officers have and in what circumstances will they be required to show that identification to the public or to a constable? Members of the public—particularly those involved in road traffic accidents or women alone at night awaiting recovery vehicles—will want to know who they are and whether they are using powers to which they are entitled.

David Wilshire: One thing that any Minister should hope for when he discovers that I am on a Standing Committee dealing with a Bill is that there are good programmes on the television. If there are not, I am prone to pick up a Bill and say to myself of an evening, ''I wonder what is wrong this time?'' It is the result of having bad television programmes recently that amendments Nos. 6 to 11 appear on the Order Paper, after one of those evenings when I thought that it would be useful to try to improve yet another piece of shoddy legislation. Let me try and explain what concerns me. Amendment 6 focuses attention on clause 5 (3) (d):
''preventing damage to, or to anything on or near, such a road''.
 That is sloppy. Could the Minister tell us what near means? How far away from the highway they are authorised to look into are these traffic officers going to roam? Why do the Government believe that the power of looking after the road should extend to looking after things that are near it? What does ''anything'' cover, and why has it been deemed necessary to include off-road issues? If he can tell us how far near is, lawyers in the future will not have so much fun deciding whether, because it was not near enough to be near, it was an excessive use of power.

Greg Knight: The mystery deepens when one looks at clause 5 (6), because:
''A traffic officer may not exercise his special powers when on a road unless he is in uniform.''
 It does not mention when he is exercising his powers near a road.

David Wilshire: The prospect of an officer undressing before he leaps over the boundary of the road to deal with something else puzzles me, but the television cannot have been that bad, because I failed to spot that one. My right hon. Friend puts me to shame, because I missed it, and he is absolutely right.
 Amendment No. 7 would delete, at the end of clause 5 (3): 
''or for a purpose incidental to any of those purposes.''
 What does the Minister see as incidental to any of those purposes? There has to be a reason for this broadening of the powers. I am always suspicious of giving officials power. First we say that they can do this; then, in case that is not enough, they can see if it is incidental. 
 We have ''near''; what does that mean? We have ''incidental'', which could mean anything. The lawyers could have a field day arguing whether or not something was ''incidental''. Perhaps we could get into Hansard the Minister's definition of the word incidental on that occasion. 
 Amendment 8 would delete clause 5 (4) (b) and (5): 
''if the condition specified in subsection (5) is met, on or in relation to any other road in England and Wales.
(5) The condition is that the traffic officer is acting
(a) at the direction of the chief officer of police''.
 At the time, that said to me that we were, yet again, extending powers. We were legislating where the officer can operate and who designates everything else; then, all of a sudden, we come across a bit of the 
 Bill that says it does not matter what was said just now. If a chief police officer says to do it anyway, it can be done. Why are we wasting our time if it can be done anyway? That is what I was driving at. 
 This amendment has become more relevant. When we check Hansard, we will find that the Minister responded to the very important point of order that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire made about students sitting down in Parliament square by saying that it was not relevant, because traffic officers would not have jurisdiction over a local road like Parliament square.

David Jamieson: That is right.

David Wilshire: The Minister is nodding; that is what he said. If we accept the subsection, the Minister is wrong. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis might have had these powers available to him and asked traffic officers who just happened to be near for help in clearing the students sitting in the road. Under the measure that I want to delete, if the commissioner had asked them, irrespective of their designation, they could have acted in Parliament square or ''any other road''
''at the direction of the chief officer of police''.
 Will the Minister clarify whether his earlier comments were correct or whether I misunderstood?

John Redwood: I am getting a little worried that this clause, seeking to stretch the powers to matters incidental, may be further indication that the Minister—who, sensibly, wants to get traffic on the move—still harbours the typical wish of the Government for these people to go into the glossy brochure industry and the business of motorists' information systems. Perhaps they will gang up with their friends in the quangos. The Government believe in giving us far more glossy brochures than we need or can afford. I am beginning to wonder whether these traffic officers are going to become glossy brochure merchants as well.

David Wilshire: I had not thought of that, but I will reflect on it. If that is correct, I will wholeheartedly support my right hon. Friend.
 What had occurred to me was the thought the Government are sneaking through yet another arrangement under which people can chivvy, hassle, annoy and direct us, and generally make our lives a misery anywhere in the country. I, for one, am heartily sick of a Government who keep making my life more unpleasant with petty officialdom at every turn. 
 The use of language such as, ''near'' a road, ''incidental'', and any road 
''at the direction of the chief officer of police''
 paints a picture of the nanny state of which the Minister is so proud; at least, I hope he is proud of it as he keeps voting for it. I think that it is appalling. If the glossy brochure state goes alongside the nanny state, I will certainly bracket the two together. 
 The items that would be deleted by amendment No. 8 are not necessary. If the Minister wants to oppose that amendment, I hope that he will tell us why. Do we need to give chief officers of police a 
 blanket power to get these people to do virtually anything anywhere? 
 Amendment No. 9 would insert the word ''full'' before the word ''uniform'' at the beginning of line 36, in clause 5(6) on page 3. Currently, it reads: 
''A traffic officer may not exercise his special powers on a road''—
 although, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire said, he could do it near a road— 
''unless he is in uniform.''
 We should clarify what is meant by uniform. If I remember rightly, many moons ago there was a loophole in some legislation, which meant that if a police officer did not have his hat on when he stopped people to breathalyse them, he was deemed not to be in uniform. There is a genuine purpose behind the amendment. For the avoidance of doubt, will the Minister confirm that where it says ''uniform'', it means full uniform, so that—before people try to exploit such a loophole in future—we have on record exactly what is meant by the wearing of uniform? 
 Uncharitable souls might think that amendment Nos. 10 and 11, with which I seek to add ''or cycle'' after the word ''vehicle'', are petty and pedantic. The only reason that I seek to do that is to put the Minister out of his misery. Clause 6(3) states: 
''A traffic officer has powers of a constable under 163(1) and (2) of the 1988 Act (powers to stop vehicles and cycles on a road).''
 So, in that clause, at the top of page 4, the wording is ''vehicles and cycles'', but at the bottom of page 3, it states that a traffic officer has powers to direct 
''a person driving or propelling a vehicle to stop''.
 As the Bill specifically says ''cycles'' later on, I imagine that it is will be a defence to say, ''I am riding a bicycle and under section 6(1)(a), you do not have the power to issue directions to somebody riding a cycle, because if you had intended it to apply to a cycle, you would not have specifically mentioned cycles at the top of page 4.'' I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, who is a lawyer, but I am always anxious to minimise the amount that lawyers can earn out of the stupidities of the Government when they cannot get their Bills right.

John Redwood: I rise to support all of the amendments that were so ably spoken to by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne. He will be reassured to learn that I am always in favour of making legislation simpler and shorter, if we must have any legislation at all. I am pleased that all of those amendments move in that direction, with the exception of those inserting ''or cycle'', which are important to clarify traffic officers' powers.
 I agree with my hon. Friend that there is no reason to extend traffic officers' powers to things ''near'' to ''such a road''. Their task should be to get traffic flowing on the road and to deal with vehicles using the road. They should not have powers to come and inspect my car in my garage well off the road, or my neighbour's in a similar position. 
 It is also sensible to delete the phrase at the end of 5(3): 
''or for a purpose incidental to any of those purposes.''
 Although the Minister's intentions may be honourable, sensible and narrow in pursuit of the objective of less congestion, others who come afterwards could take advantage of such a rather wide-ranging portmanteau phrase and add all sorts of duties for the traffic officers that we did not intend. 
 For the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend, I welcome the idea that we should delete subsection (4)(b) and subsection (5). The Bill would be slightly improved by withdrawing that added complexity. My hon. Friend has done the Committee a service by pointing out that cyclists sometimes appear and sometimes do not. The traffic officer clearly must be able to control cycles as well as other road vehicles, as they are often at the heart of a problem. Trying to mix cycles with larger and faster vehicles is often the cause of problems, particularly at junctions. I think that traffic officers would need that power to handle the problem. It is curious that the drafting sometimes gives express power over cycles, and other times not. 
 I agree with my hon. Friend that, for the avoidance of doubt, the Bill should always have both in if it means both. Otherwise some lawyer will earn an unreasonable crust for making an unreasonable point, and charge some poor victim for the privilege.

Greg Knight: I thank the Minister for giving us advance warning of new clause 10, which is to replace clause 6. We make no criticism of him for that, and we are grateful for the early notice. One of the benefits of the move towards pre-legislative scrutiny is that Ministers feel less bound to defend a Bill, as if it were their baby, and are more willing to accept amendments. Ministers should be big enough to say that a Bill can be improved as suggested by other right hon. or hon. Members; and he should be willing to accept amendments. Similarly, it is incumbent on the Opposition not to criticise Ministers when they do not do so. We are in the business of making law—we are not a debating society—and any attempt to improve a Bill to which the Minister agrees should grasped by Members of all parties.
 In that spirit, I highlight a few of the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham and my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne. We would like to hear the Minister's view on whether amendment No. 9 should be added to the Bill. What is a uniform? If a traffic officer is wearing part of a uniform, is it still a uniform? That is where lawyers will start to make money. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne said, the breathalyser law—the Road Safety Act 1967, introduced by Barbara Castle—more than any other piece of legislation, gave rise to many court cases, a large number of which went to appeal. That certainly lined the pockets of many lawyers. Unlike my hon. Friend, I do not criticise the lawyers; I criticise those hon. Members who at the time, in my view, failed properly to scrutinise and tighten the loose wording of that legislation. For the avoidance of all doubt, I would like to see the word ''full'' in the Bill, 
 and amendment No. 9 accepted. I hope that the Minister is will to do that. 
 Why is that those drafting the Bill thought it necessary in subsection (6) to use the words ''on a road''? Are those words not superfluous? If a traffic officer is exercising his special powers, do we need those words? Subsection (3)(d) refers to him having the power to prevent damage 
''to, or to anything on or near, such a road''.
 A minefield of prospective challenges is being made more likely by that apparent discrepancy in the wording. If a traffic officer will be given the power to consider things on and near a road, why is there a reference to him having to be in uniform ''on a road'' in subsection (6)? It would be far better to leave out those three words. Why are they there? I hope that the Minister can answer that question. 
 My other question relates to subsection (5)(a), which refers to a traffic officer acting 
''at the direction of the chief officer of police''.
 Am I right to assume that if a traffic officer is told to do something by a constable and does it, that will be deemed to be acting in accordance with, or at the direction of, a chief officer of police?

David Jamieson: This has been quite a wide-ranging debate. The amendments cover a wide range of issues, and I shall try to do them justice.
 The hon. Member for Christchurch opened the debate and apologised to the Committee. He told me beforehand that he was unable to be here now, just as the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East, is also involved in an Adjournment debate. However, I shall place on the record my response to the hon. Gentleman's point. He was trying to extend the role of traffic officers so that they were more in line with community support officers, but CSOs are accredited by the police and directly accountable to the police service. That is a very different role from that of traffic officers. To be able to arrest people and, one assumes, detain them, traffic officers would need special training and would need to be suitably equipped. I think that that would be an inappropriate role for the Highways Agency to undertake. 
 The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) asked about identification of the officers. Highways Agency traffic officers will have a number on their shoulder, and an identification card with a photograph. Their name will be clearly visible. That is the type of uniform that they will wear, as will be apparent to anyone who sees them. 
 Amendment No. 30 would delete clause 8 and remove the power for the appropriate national authority to confer further special powers on traffic officers by statutory instrument. That would mean that any special powers required at a later date would have to be sought through primary legislation. 
 The introduction of traffic officers is a radical new approach to traffic management on our trunk roads and, as such, represents a significant change in the Highways Agency's culture and remit. As our operational experience develops, further powers may 
 be identified that could make the traffic officer service more effective and efficient. The Highways Agency is likely to learn important lessons during the early years of operation, and clause 8 provides the ability to turn those lessons into service improvements over a relatively short time by speeding up the legislative process. It does not give carte blanche for the national authority to do as it pleases. 
 An inability to confer additional powers would hamper the effectiveness and confidence of officers in operating on the road system, as inevitably there may be activities on the margins of the specifics set out in the clause that are nevertheless needed. Additional powers would be conferred only if they were relevant to traffic officers' duties. In England, the necessary instrument would be subject to a resolution in Parliament. 
 Amendment No. 8 would prevent traffic officers from operating on any roads other than those for which the appropriate national authority was the traffic authority. To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, I point out that in certain circumstances traffic officers could be called in by a police officer, but that would be on or near the national network. The remit of traffic officers is to operate on the national network, so if they were instructed to operate on local roads, that would be somewhere in close proximity. We have in mind a situation in which there has been a serious incident—on a motorway, say—and there are consequential jams on local roads that are nearby or leading off it. It would be appropriate for the traffic officer to be directed to go to those roads. Protocols would have to be worked up with local authorities and those protocols with the police would be clearly in place, so that everybody knew what they were doing. 
 I was for a moment attracted to amendment No. 6. It would remove the ability of traffic officers to exercise their special powers to prevent damage to anything near a road and within their jurisdiction—the point that the hon. Member for Spelthorne made—and we thought carefully about the matter. However, it could reduce the effectiveness of traffic officers in an emergency situation in which positive action is needed in circumstances that threaten to spill beyond the highway boundary. A good example was the incident at Selby—it might have been appropriate there for a traffic officer to operate beyond the bounds of the trunk road. Another might be an instance in which a vehicle that is in a dangerous condition careers through the barrier at the side of the road, perhaps into somebody's garden or on to a farmer's piece of land, where it presents a risk either to the environment or to human life. It would be absurd if the traffic officer were not allowed to step just beyond the narrow confines of the highway, because he could not operate ''near''. As in all such matters, if it were put to the test, the meaning of ''near'' would be decided by the courts, but reasonableness would have to be taken into consideration.

David Wilshire: I see the argument that the Minister is developing; common sense would suggest that in a Selby-type situation—God forbid that it should happen, but if it were to do so—there could well be
 reasons for the traffic officer to help. However, I question whether a traffic officer needs to have powers in what amounts to a full-blown crisis. Police officers will have attended long since and both ambulance crew and fire officers, without any of those powers, will have done sensible things to minimise the risk of a further accident and to help to protect the public. Just because traffic officers do not have official powers to order people about, it does not mean that they cannot help. Why do they need all this statutory paraphernalia in order to do what anybody would do if they were there to lend the police a hand?

David Jamieson: The simple answer is that we can imagine a circumstance in which it might be appropriate for traffic officers, working with the emergency services, to bring in a heavy vehicle to remove vehicles that are near to the highway but not actually on it. We felt that it would be inappropriate to take that out of the Bill; rather, it should be left in in order to avoid any future challenge that traffic officers were operating beyond the scope of their responsibility.
 Amendments Nos. 9 and 20 relate to references to a traffic officer's having to be in uniform to exercise certain powers. The uniform will not require a hat. It will normally be an identifiable protective yellow jacket and leggings with an appropriate jumper. The amendments propose that that be amended to ''full'' uniform. While I understand the intent of the amendments, they are unnecessary and undesirable. The drafting is consistent with the wording used in similar legislation—for example, section 95(7) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 in relation to traffic wardens and sections 37 and 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 in relation to constables. In those examples, the expression, ''uniform'', not ''full uniform'' is used. To use alternative wording would be unnecessary and inconsistent with that approach.

David Wilshire: I follow the Minister's explanation. The fact that he has put on the record exactly what it means is probably sufficient, but he has not addressed the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, perhaps slightly tongue in cheek, about the need to be in uniform on a road but not off it. The Minister resisted an amendment that would leave in the expression ''near a road'', and we have had examples of why traffic officers with heavy lifting gear might need to operate off a road but near it. If he persists with that argument, surely he needs to address the question of wearing a uniform near the road? It is not just a debating point, because he has argued for the need to wear a uniform on a road and given reasons why traffic officers should have powers. The clause does say that they exercise powers and must be in uniform, but there are situations in which they need to be off the road but need not be in uniform, and the Government should consider those between now and Report.

David Jamieson: When the traffic officers are carrying out their duties, they will be duty bound and contractually bound to comply with a dress code for
 working on the network. They will generally be working on the highway and wearing their uniform. They will also wear their uniform on the probably rare occasion when they are called in to work near the road.
 Amendment No. 92 seems to be intended to avoid repetition of the wording that the powers referred to in clauses 6(1)(a) and (b) already include. Sections 35 and 37 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 use the same expression. 
 Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 relate to clause 6, which the Government tabled new clause 10 to replace. However, the principle of amendment No. 10 also applies to new clause 10, so it needs some comment. Amendment No. 10 proposes that the word ''cycle'' be included in clause 6(1)(a). Similarly, amendment No. 11 proposes that ''cycle'' be included in clause 6(2). Both amendments aim to ensure that the power of traffic officers to direct vehicles applies to cyclists, but they are probably unnecessary because clauses 6(1)(a) and 6(2) were drafted to give traffic officers the same power as constables in respect of sections 35(1) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. 
 The word ''vehicle'' used in section 35 includes a cycle. That is the recognised interpretation of the word, and we do not want to depart from that approach in the case of traffic officers. To do so would be inconsistent with the interpretation of section 35 as it applies to constables, or to traffic wardens where legislation that relates to them also applies to section 35. 
 Members may be puzzled by our reason for using ''cycles'' in clause 6(3). That clause refers to section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which uses the expression ''mechanically propelled vehicles'' rather than ''vehicles''. That expression does not include cycles, although section 163 also expressly refers to cycles. I hope that that clarifies the apparent inconsistency in the use of the word ''cycles''. I see that that explanation has excited a comment from the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham.

Paul Marsden: Could I have an answer to my original question, which was why the original wording referred to sections 35(1) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, while new clause 10 refers to section 35(3).

David Jamieson: We were minded to table an amendment to clause 6. However, when the lawyers examined the clause, it became more convoluted as we began to amend it further to take out the power of arrest that we had inadvertently given traffic officers. Therefore, the draftsman tore up the clause and started from scratch, resulting in new clause 10. As we are getting into legal niceties, perhaps I could drop the hon. Gentleman a line to clarify the situation for the lawyers' minds.
 Amendment No. 32 would give traffic officers a power of arrest because section 163(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 confers such a power on constables. To give traffic officers the powers conferred on constables by the whole of section 163, rather than subsections (1) and (2), would give them the power of arrest. 
 We have had a useful debate, and we have covered several interesting points. I hope that we can now consider the rest of the clause.

Greg Knight: I thank the Minister for his full explanation of many of the points raised during the wide-ranging debate. The Opposition were concerned that the powers were drawn too widely. However, what the Minister said about the need to react to situations as they unfold carried weight, particularly given the example of the Selby rail disaster, a terrible tragedy that occurred close to my constituency in which one of my constituents was killed. There is a delicate balance between allowing the responsible person on the scene flexibility to react in an unusual situation and powers being too wide or unchecked. In the light of what the Minister said, we will not force a Division on amendment No. 6.
 May I refer the Minister to a point that he did not answer? It is not the subject of an amendment today, but it may be on Report unless we get an answer from him. The Minister has not convinced me why we need the words ''on a road'' in clause 5(6). Without those words, the subsection conveys the Minister's wish that a traffic officer should wear his uniform at work. As we have already accepted that a traffic officer may be near rather than on a road during his work, why do we need those words? Their deletion would improve the Bill. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that and give an answer before Report, or we may be minded to table an amendment. 
 The Minister's reply on clause 8 did not commend itself to me, and I hope that it did not do so to my hon. Friends. His reason for accepting clause 8 was that it would allow the speeding up of new powers that are deemed necessary. Dictators never have a problem acting with speed or obtaining new powers that they deem necessary. Democracy is a slowcoach, but that is surely preferable to allowing changes without proper scrutiny or wide consultation. The protection of liberty and allowing elected Members to have their say should override the Minister's desire for speed. The Bill will be far better without clause 8, and when we get to the clause 8 stand part debate, I shall urge the Committee to vote against it.

David Jamieson: I shall not comment on clause 8 until we reach it, but the hon. Gentleman makes a point about clause 5(6), which refers to a traffic officer not exercising his powers on the road unless he is in uniform. Some traffic officers will operate in places other than the road, including in the control centre. When officers are specifically on the road and interfacing with the public, it is important that they should be in uniform, whereas in the control centre, they will be operating the signs on the road and enforcing speed limits the signs, but the public will not see them. It would not therefore be imperative for them to wear uniform there. I hope that that is helpful and will deter the hon. Gentleman from tabling another amendment on Report.

Greg Knight: I am grateful to the Minister and will reflect on what he has just said.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 6 disagreed to.

David Wilshire: Point of order, Mr. Beard. Can I make it absolutely clear, so that we can get it in to Hansard, that the Government have just voted against part of their own Bill?

Nigel Beard: Yes, that is so.
 Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 - Powers to confer further special powers on traffic officers

John Thurso: I beg to move amendment No. 93, in
page 4, line 27, after 'may', insert 
 'after full consultation with all relevant parties'.

Nigel Beard: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 12, in 
page 4, line 36, leave out 'any Act or'.
 No. 13, in 
page 4, line 36, at end insert— 
 '(3A) An order made under this section may not amend any Act'.

John Thurso: This is by way of a probing amendment to discover what would be the Government's intention if the clause were to remain in the Bill: would there be any consultation on any further special powers given to traffic officers that might be brought in? If the Minister puts on record that there will be consultation, whom will it be with and what form will it take? I do not want to pre-empt what may be said in the clause stand part debate, but this is a clause that gives the Liberal Democrats considerable concern. If it were put to a vote we should certainly vote against it, given its wide-ranging powers. In the interim, and in the assumption that we might not be successful in striking out the clause from the Bill, I should like to know whether the Government envisage consultation, in what form they envisage it, and how it might take place.
 I also ask the Minister to tell us why, for clause 2, it was appropriate for the wide powers of privatisation to be held back for ministerial diktat alone and not put into the clause? That would have been a sensible place in which to put them and would have allowed parliamentary scrutiny. However, the principal point is to ascertain how the clause might be acted on in future.

Greg Knight: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 12 and 13. I associate myself with what has been said by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross from the Liberal Democrat Benches. If one must have a choice, I would prefer to sacrifice speed rather than adequate consultation and parliamentary approval. However, I accept that the Government may not be persuaded to remove clause 8 from the Bill, and so I hope that they may be persuaded to water it down in the interest of the democratic process by accepting amendments Nos. 12 and 13. The effect
 would be that were clause 8 to remain in the Bill it would not give power to alter any Act of Parliament. Indeed, it would expressly not have that effect.
 I hope that the Minister is prepared to compromise. Although it is right in the light of experience to ensure that traffic officers have the powers that they need to discharge their duties properly, that should not be at the expense of the parliamentary process.

John Redwood: I agree that it is an undesirable development, meaning that it will become easier to amend and complicate legislation without going through the proper process of scrutiny in the way that we are today on this primary legislation. My right hon. Friend has done a service to the Committee and to the House of Commons by drawing attention to the quite wide-ranging power as it stands in the Bill, which would allow changes to occur without going through the proper process. We need to make it difficult to legislate; we have far too many laws and are generating too much additional law at all times. It is much better to have a long and careful process on more occasions, like that used for primary legislation. It makes Governments a little more reluctant to pick up the legislative pen. It makes them consider the impact of the legislative pen a little more carefully, clause by clause, line by line, in a workman-like way, as we are doing today.
 I have some reservations about the Liberal Democrat proposal. If there is one thing that my constituents are more annoyed by than not being consulted over a proposal, it is being consulted and then having their views ignored. It is a doubly annoying phenomenon that happens all too often these days; the Government proceed ostensibly full of good will and wishing to consult, but when they get an obvious answer from a locality that their line is not popular, their policy is ill conceived or their intentions are wrong, they steamroller on none the less and ignore the consultation. My fear is that something similar will happen in this instance. 
 Such bureaucracy will soon develop its own house style and its own policy and will not be willing to listen. It would be an added insult to add consultation procedures without even specifying who has a right to be consulted, so that I waste even more time on behalf of my constituents contacting another bureaucracy that is unlikely to respond. If the Liberal Democrats are serious about more local control, they should not draft proposals that entail merely consultation. They must put some teeth into the consultation. There must be limits on the power of those proposing the policies and carrying out the consultation should the consultation discover that the measures are unwelcome or that there is a large majority view against them. I am not minded to support the Liberal Democrat proposal because it is mere window dressing and it will not work.

John Mann: I have two questions to which I hope the Minister can provide crystal clear answers. The first is to ask whether the Minister can give an assurance that the clause will not give ''Dick Turpin'' powers to members of the car-parking and
 wheel-clampers social club, to enhance their ability to take people to criminal courts and to harass them with bailiffs. I want the Minister's assurance that no additional powers will be given to these people in sparkling new uniforms.
 My second question considers clause 8 in the context of clause 5 and the powers that might be exercised for 
''maintaining or improving the movement of traffic'',
 reducing anything that can cause congestion, 
''avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using . . . a road''
 and preventing damage. 
 The Minister and I discussed road humps in an Adjournment debate, and he will be pleased to know that the road humps that we debated have now been removed from one of the estates in my constituency, much to the delight of all my constituents in the area. 
 At a later stage, could a specific power be given under clause 8, with due consideration and consultation, to allow traffic officers to inspect current road humps and any plans for future road humps? It is clear from the evidence from my constituency that the provisions in clause 5(3)(a) to (d) match the problems caused by inappropriate use of the cushion road humps on large estates such as the Manton estate. That pro-motorist but also pro-community piece of legislation would be most welcome.

John Redwood: The hon. Gentleman makes a superb case on a problem that has bedevilled many communities throughout the UK. I congratulate him on his campaign. Is he aware that the emergency services are particularly keen that his proposals should be taken up by the Minister, because they find that their vehicles are impeded and damaged by the ridiculous street humps that we have in so many places?

John Mann: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Nottinghamshire fire engines could not straddle the Manton road humps; Nottinghamshire ambulance service was not consulted about them but had to cross 21 humps to reach the extremity of the estate and 21 again on its way out.
 Road humps in Britain are put predominantly in large council estates and large mining villages, and in mining villages a disproportionate number of people have back problems. It is not just the statutory services that object to the road humps, but the bus services as well. The same elderly miners who have back problems use the buses, and they have become the most vitriolic and strident campaigners against road humps. 
 Road humps also cause problems for the funeral services. A hearse is particularly unsuited to crossing road humps, because it is a low load-bearing vehicle. If a funeral cortege travels from St. Paul's church in the centre of Manton to Worksop cemetery, the entire cortege has to cross 13 road humps. I can imagine no greater indignity.

David Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman explains what happens with funerals. He should count himself lucky.
 The residents of Commercial road, Staines, can still remember when a hearse came over the road humps to collect the coffin and the body and when it came back the other way it was grounded, had to be towed away and was late at the crematorium.

John Mann: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I suppose that there is the possible advantage that the road hump will jolt so much that the body will rise in its coffin and be resurrected, but as far as I am aware that has unfortunately not yet happened to any of my constituents.
 However, my point is that if so-called road safety developments are unthought-out and badly designed, they are an impediment. Traversing a cushion road hump at 60 mph is more comfortable for passengers than at 10 mph, which gives an incentive to drive faster rather than slower. Removing the kerbs from footpaths makes it more dangerous for young people and the elderly to cross a large stretch road with humps. Such badly designed and badly thought-out initiatives are naturally rather unpopular.

Brian White: Is not the point, as some of the key campaigners who have advocated such road safety measures have suggested, that it is the local authority's responsibility to consult all people? One group that tends to be neglected is pedestrians.

John Mann: Absolutely—pedestrians, motorists, the emergency services, the bus services and the funeral directors. I merely make the point that traffic officers could be given the new role of spotting such obstacles, which are a major impediment not only to traffic but to the cohesion of the community. Given the example of the removal of the road humps on the Manton estate, that function may be an appropriate way for the Government, who are pro-motorist and pro-car, to demonstrate their willingness to take a step further.

Paul Marsden: I cannot let it pass that although I agree with the hon. Gentleman that road humps can be a great impediment if the location and materials are ill-conceived, I sincerely hope that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, who has done sterling work for Road Peace, agrees that the funeral director might be travelling because he has someone in the back who has died at the hands of a speeding driver. Road humps save lives. We should bear in mind that speeding drivers kill, I think, 10 people every day.

Greg Knight: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but is not the answer that road humps are not the way forward? There are other ways of slowing vehicles down without the downside of road humps, which increase noise pollution and air pollution and damage vehicles.

Paul Marsden: I believe that the hon. Gentleman may be right. There can be detrimental effects, but at the end of the day road humps unarguably save lives in certain locations. However, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw is absolutely right that some locations are not appropriate and that road humps sometimes cause many problems.
 I cannot let it pass that the right hon. Member for Wokingham thinks that it is a bad idea to have consultation, especially when the amendment, which my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross and I tabled, is intended to deal with statutory instruments. We should not allow statutory instruments to sneak through. The reason for tabling the amendment was to get on record which authorities the Minister would consult. I hope that the list would include local authorities and traffic authorities, but that would be up to him. I hope also that he will reassure the Committee that consultation is an important part of the process. 
 I should like to draw the Minister's attention to page 5 of the first report of the Transport Committee for the 2003–04 Session, which says about clause 8: 
''Even though these powers are subject to the affirmative procedure we believe there should be a thorough exploration of exactly what is proposed, and why these powers cannot be identified now.''
 Likewise, the AA motoring trust said in a recent parliamentary briefing of 26 January that the clause should be deleted. It stated: 
''This section is unacceptable from a public policy standpoint. Parliament should not give the Executive the power to grant itself unspecified powers, which are not themselves limited to those referred to under section 5''.
 I sincerely hope that the Minister can reply to those points.

David Wilshire: May I say to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw that I enjoyed his contribution? I am pleased to hear from the Labour Benches such marvellous, libertarian, common-sense and pro-motorist views. If he needs a new home after the vote downstairs at 7 o'clock, I will be in the Strangers' Bar and would be happy to discuss terms with him.

John Mann: The hon. Gentleman fails to recognise that Labour Members come from the tradition of making the cars.

David Wilshire: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but the offer still stands.
 As the afternoon has worn on, I have become slightly more relaxed as the draftsman of amendments Nos. 12 and 13. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham has supported me on a couple of amendments, so the balance seems to have improved and I have not had to endure the same difficulty as I did this morning. 
 What my right hon. Friends the Members for Wokingham and for East Yorkshire said is correct, and I am attacking not just the Labour Government, but any Government who say that they do not care what is in a Bill because if it suits their purpose, they will change it without reference. If that is going to happen, I do not see the point of having a Parliament or a Standing Committee, but that is what the clause will do. I cannot believe that it is right. 
 I have no difficult with subordinate legislation, which is sensible as there are plenty of arguments in favour of not cluttering up the House with unnecessary detail. However, no matter what reason 
 the Minister gives, I cannot bring myself to believe that it is right and democratic to give the Government the power to change any Act by fiat. That is not democratic, and I plead for the Minister to stand up for democracy and, rather than justify the clause, say that he is willing to consider it again. It cannot be correct to allow a Secretary of State to say that he does not care what legislation says and will change it without consulting Parliament.

Nigel Beard: If the debate continues to range so far and wide, there will be no cause for a stand part debate as we will have covered all points.

David Jamieson: The debate has indeed been wide ranging, and I too have enjoyed the contributions from both sides of the Committee.
 Amendment No. 93 is possibly unnecessary, but the spirit behind it is not. The Government always consult as appropriate on draft regulations to ensure that they are sensible and carry the appropriate support. Any proposal would be subject to parliamentary or even judicial challenge if such consultation had not taken place, and consultation is a standard practice. 
 The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross asked what form the consultation would take. Consultation does not have to be statutory to be good, but we envisage wide consultation of interested parties to the usual Government standards that have been used for some time. We want to make the consultation meaningful and to have proper discussion. As the right hon. Member for Wokingham said, consultation must be not a ritual but a proper discussion in which we listen to what people have to say and in which they can make a difference. If it is any help, I can tell the Committee that in previous consultations on matters that seem unimportant in the great vista but are important to certain groups of people, we have listened carefully and changed our minds substantially. 
 The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham asked who would be consulted. That will depend on what we were doing, but the police, fire brigade and the ambulance service come immediately to mind. Local authorities, freight and motorist bodies and recovery companies would also probably be involved, as would any other bodies, such as environmental groups, that have an interest in the particular issue. 
 My natural inclination is not to accept amendments Nos. 12 and 13. The Government are reluctant to put in the measures for which they provide. However, if they are not there, we may need some minor consequential amendments to primary legislation. The amendments would severely restrict and reduce the clause's effectiveness. In many cases, they would make it unworkable for the purposes intended. 
 In practice, the Government are able to amend secondary legislation, so the amendments are not necessary. They would tend to render the clause useless. There will be some minor peripheral issues, but not major issues that we would want to bring through by these means. They would be brought forward by affirmative resolution statutory 
 instruments that would come before and be debated by both Houses of Parliament. 
 We thought carefully about examples, and I do not think there are many. There is a tiny example of where a small change in legislation may be needed: the Bill gives the power for the traffic officer to escort heavy loads, but he has no power to dictate at what time of the day that could take place, which would mean a minor change to a piece of legislation elsewhere. That is the sort of minor change we anticipate.

Brian White: My hon. Friend will be aware of the regulatory reform process, which has built into it the kind of consultations about which he has been talking, allowing a number of organisations to express views. Would he consider looking at that kind of regulatory reform, which would assist him in taking the clause forward?

David Jamieson: We are prepared to consider anything that improves consultation. My Department consults well in general, but if there is something we can do to improve, we will. I thought that the right hon. Member for Wokingham was going to say to me—it has been said to me on other occasions—that sometimes the one thing worse than not being consulted is being consulted. Some people are on consultation overload; we are mindful of that. Certain bodies find it difficult to respond because of the number of consultations that we send out. We have to be thoughtful.
 I enjoyed the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw, who took us back to Dick Turpin powers. I assure him that there is no intention of powers being brought in so that traffic officers can rob members of the public at the side of the road, in car parks or anywhere else. That will be good news to him, but I have one word of disappointment for him. The traffic officers unfortunately will not be inspecting his road humps. They essentially appear on local roads, and, of course, traffic officers will not operate on those. 
 I am not yet aware of road humps on any motorway, but I am aware of some severe dips on the M6 in Warwickshire. I am sure the traffic officers would take an interest in whether they were growing deeper. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that ancient mine workings have caused those dips. Anyone who has been across them will appreciate that they are like a helter-skelter ride. 
Mr. Wilshire rose—
John Mann rose—

David Jamieson: As I was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw, I will give way to him first.

John Mann: There has been a growing spirit during the day of maximum compromise in the air. There is another set of road humps, which I have not yet properly addressed, in my constituency, some of them on more major roads. I suggest that a compromise could be reached whereby the road humps could be taken out and used as part of the infill for the dips.

David Jamieson: That suggestion is ingenious, and I will certainly give it careful consideration. I can tie the two issues together by saying that road humps can do
 a useful job in some circumstances by slowing traffic and making the roads safer.

John Redwood: No way.

David Jamieson: Well, they do. I know that in some parts of the country, local people would rightly be up in arms if the humps were removed. However, before any such measure is taken, people should be properly consulted. Generally, such measures are not supported if people are not thoroughly consulted. In my view, before local authorities put in road humps, they should exhaust every other means of traffic calming, and they should have in mind not a particular method but a way to reduce the number of people killed and injured on the roads. Sadly, on the roads on the estates that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw mentioned, many of those people are children.

Andrew Miller: In the spirit of our debate, perhaps I can make an offer through the Minister to the right hon. Member for Wokingham and my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw. If their authorities have money to spare that they do not want to spend on traffic calming, would they please transfer it to my authority? As my hon. Friend the Minister says, other parts of the country have a desire to improve traffic calming.

David Jamieson: That is right; and if the local authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw has extra funds to pass on to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), I am sure that he will wish to ensure that it does so.
 The debate has been rather wide ranging, Mr. Beard, and we may have tested your patience a little. However, I hope that the Committee will resist the amendment.

Greg Knight: I thank you, Mr. Beard, for your indulgence. The debate has been wide ranging, but it has been all the better for it. I compliment the hon. Member for Bassetlaw on his speech. En passant, he made a number of telling points on the subject of road humps, and most of us hope that before long they will be on the way out. They delay emergency vehicles, they cause damage to vehicles and the increase noise and air pollution. There are far better ways—

Nigel Beard: Order. Could the hon. Gentleman leave coffins and road humps to another time?

Greg Knight: I did say en passant, but I agree with all that the hon. Gentleman said.
 I make no criticism of those who serve the Minister for including clause 8. After all, it is the duty of those who serve Ministers to ensure that Bills cover all eventualities and give powers to deal with all the problems that may arise. However, the accumulation of power in clause 8 is unacceptable. One need only look at its wording. Subsection (1), which confers further special powers, would be bad enough if the conferring of the powers related only to the existing duties of the traffic officers, but in subsection (2) further special powers can be given to facilitate the performance of 
''any duties which may be assigned to traffic officers''.
 In other words, if duties that we did not envisage today can be given to traffic officers, further powers can be given and powers to alter legislation can be made under the clause. 
 The essence of the Minister's defence seemed to be, ''I'm honest David: trust me.'' We do trust the Minister; he is held in the highest regard in all parts of the House. However, we are making legislation. I shall not say, as Sir Robin Day once said to Sir John Nott, ''Ministers are here today and gone tomorrow''. However, a time will come—I hope that it is a long way off—when the Minister will be moved on. We may then have a transport Minister who takes a totally different view of the powers given in clause 8. Although we are prepared to trust honest David, we are not prepared to trust his unknown successors. I hope that the Committee will decide, on reflection, that the Bill would be far better without clause 8. However, if we have to have it, I would rather it remained somewhat meaningless. That said, Mr. Beard, we would like the opportunity to vote on amendments Nos. 12 and 13.

John Thurso: Amendment No. 93 has elicited from the Minister the explanation that I hoped that we would receive and has put it on to the record. In that sense, the amendment has achieved its objective, and I shall withdraw it. However, as we have decided not to have a clause stand part debate, I shall make a few remarks.
 I agree with the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, who highlighted the accumulation of power and the multiplier effect, which are my concerns about the clause. I have not sat on a Standing Committee before, but I have experienced consideration in Committee in another place, where I have listened to Ministers at the Dispatch Box saying in a silken-tongued way that this would never be used and that that was merely to keep for a rainy day when some unforeseen circumstance that might not have been thought of could just occur. I remember listening to Lord Sewel saying all of that in relation to section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998. We have now had, I think, 55 motions using that section—a backstop power that nobody could envisage using except very occasionally, but which has become a regular feature of the parliamentary process. While I do not think that this will necessarily become a similar section, it has all the hallmarks of something that could be used in such a way. If a power needs to be in the Bill and is not, and the other powers cannot be dealt with by proper parliamentary scrutiny, my first choice would be to see the clause struck out. If not, then my hon. Friends and I will vote for the Conservative amendments. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 12, in 
page 4, line 36, leave out 'any Act or'.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
 Question put: That the amendment by made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 7.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 13, in 
page 4, line 36, at end insert— 
 '(3A) An order made under this section may not amend any Act'.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
 Question put: That the amendment by made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 7.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Motion made and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 - Removal of certain vehicles by traffic officers

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 156, in
page 5, line 7, at end add— 
 '(2A) No regulation made under section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 shall require the payment of a fee by the registered keeper of a vehicle when that vehicle has been moved or disabled as a result of any unlawful act by another person.'.

Nigel Beard: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 157, in 
page 5, line 7, at end add— 
 '(2A) When exercising any powers made under provisions referred to in subsection (1), and before arranging for the removal of a broken-down vehicle, a traffic officer shall grant the driver of the vehicle, where present, a reasonable opportunity to contact a breakdown organisation of their choice and if that organisation confirms to the traffic officer that it will attend the broken-down 
vehicle as soon as practicable, then the traffic officer shall allow that organisation a reasonable period in which to attend the aforesaid vehicle.'.
 Amendment No. 158, in 
page 5, line 7, at end add— 
 '(2A) Any fee or charge set for the removal of any vehicle under this section shall be reasonable and in line with similar charges applicable in the open market.'.
 New clause 20A—Traffic Management Forum— 
'(1) The appropriate national authority shall create a Traffic Management Forum. 
 (2) Membership of the Traffic Management Forum shall comprise representatives from the Department for Transport, the Highways Agency, the Local Government Association, the Association of Chief Police Officers, accredited recovery organisations and such other bodies or persons as the appropriate national authority considers suitable. 
 (3) The Traffic Management Forum shall prepare a Code of Practice (the Code) to be observed by traffic officers, by accredited recovery organisations and by any organisations providing services equivalent to those provided by accredited recovery organisations (collectively known as rescue and recovery organisations). 
 (4) The Code shall include guidance on— 
 (a) the exercise by traffic officers of powers under sections 99 to 102 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to remove broken down vehicles; 
 (b) procedures to be adopted by traffic officers and by rescue and recovery organisations in order to achieve the purposes identified in section 5(3); and 
 (c) any further and consequential matters that relate to the existence provided by rescue and recovery organisations in the performance by traffic officers of their duties under this Act. 
 (5) The Traffic Management Forum may from time to time prepare a revised version of the Code. 
 (6) Before preparing or revising the Code, the Traffic Management Forum shall consult such bodies or persons as it considers appropriate. 
 (7) After preparing the Code or a revised version of the Code the Traffic Management Forum shall send a copy to the appropriate national authority. 
 (8) If the appropriate national authority approves it, the Code shall be laid before each House of Parliament and the Code, and any revised version of the Code, shall not come into force until it has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. 
 (9) The appropriate national authority shall not issue any guidance on the issues detailed in subsection (4) without first consulting the Traffic Management Forum. 
 (10) For the purposes of this section ''accredited recovery organisations'' shall have the meaning contained in The Greater London (Central Zone) Congestion Charging Order 2001.'.

Christopher Chope: Our debates have been more productive than the exchange that I had in Westminster Hall, so I am delighted to be back in Committee.
 The amendment would provide: 
''No regulation made under section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 shall require the payment of a fee by the registered keeper of a vehicle when that vehicle has been moved or disabled as a result of any unlawful act by another person.''
 One might have thought that that was common sense and the way of the world. Apparently, however, it is not. Increasingly, the victims of crime are being charged for the privilege of collecting their vehicles from where a criminal has placed them. A recent topical example was drawn to my attention by one of my constituents who runs an archetypal small business called Perfect Pizza. One of his delivery mopeds was 
 stolen. On the following day, he was told that the moped had been recovered and that he could collect it on payment of £105 to the Portsmouth depot of Boarhunt Garages Ltd. Thereafter, daily charges of £12 would accrue until it was collected. After my constituent had reported it stolen, it was found less than 400 yd from his business. It had been removed on the instructions of the police so that their scene-of-crime officers could carry out forensic tests. It was then taken to Boarhunt Garages. 
 This is a Government who say that they are in favour of ensuring that the victims of crime get a fair deal. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment, thereby demonstrating that, in this narrow area at least, he is prepared to accept that that principle should rule. Surely it is intolerable that such a financial penalty should be imposed on the owner of a small business when he is the victim of crime and the vehicle is taken away at the behest of the police in order to help to identify the perpetrator? The response of the owner of this small business to the suggestion, ''Don't worry, you can claim it on your insurance,'' was, ''Claim it on my insurance? That means that ultimately I and other people who have insured cars and vehicles will end up paying the bill.'' That is why he is a very successful businessman: he applies those principles across the board rather than believing that claiming on his insurance is a nil-cost option. 
 Amendment No. 157 relates to a slightly different issue, but it addresses the concerns of the RAC recovery services, the Automobile Association and Green Flag that the Bill as drafted will give power to the Highways Agency effectively to double charge their members. This concern was expressed on Second Reading. Discussions and correspondence with the Minister and his officials have not yet allayed the concerns of the roadside recovery industry. Hence, amendment No. 157—I will not read it out in full, but I hope the Minister will agree that it will effectively encapsulate in writing what he has been saying all along, namely that the roadside recovery services have nothing to fear from the wide terms of clause 9. If they have nothing to fear, he can satisfy them, by accepting amendment No. 157. 
 Amendment No. 158 addresses the issue of the standard charge. It would provide that any fee or charge set for the removal of a vehicle under this section of the Bill will be reasonable and in line with similar charges applicable in the open market. At present, there is a standard charge of £105, which has been in place since the late 1980s. The charge is the same, whether the vehicle has to be moved many miles or only a short distance, and irrespective of how far the rescue vehicle has had to travel. Without this provision is would be open to the Highways Agency to start setting fees so that it made a substantial profit on the recovery of vehicles, and thereby to impose a further stealth tax.

David Jamieson: Ah, a stealth tax.

Christopher Chope: The Minister is sensitive to the subject of stealth taxes, and so he should be, because his Department is in the forefront of imposing stealth taxes upon the motoring public. The example of the
 moped that I used in my remarks on amendment No. 156 is an example of where £105, to take a moped to a depot three miles away, is clearly extortionate. I do not think that there should have been any charge, but amendment No. 158 would ensure that where there were charges they would be proportionate and reasonable.
 New clause 20A will be spoken to by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East. It establishes a traffic-management forum. Conservatives are supportive of this, but that cannot be a substitute for the very specific amendments that I have outlined.

Brian White: I shall speak briefly to new clause 20A. The hon. Member for Christchurch has outlined a number of fears about road safety, and these were articulated on Second Reading. I should declare that I am a member of CSMA/Britannia Rescue, just for the avoidance of doubt. New clause 20A is about another way of trying to address road safety concerns, by informally bringing together those involved in the roadside recovery companies with the Highways Agency. Will the Minister address their concerns? We can bring these companies together in a way that allows them to have their fears allayed and ensures that, as changes happen, there is a form of consultation. That was the purpose of new clause 20A—to try to get the Minister to look at that side of things.

David Jamieson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch on his restraint. He managed a whole four and a half hours in Committee before he mentioned the words ''stealth tax'', but in the end he blurted it out. I am sure that we will hear more about the stealth tax.
 These are serious amendments that deserve serious attention, like many of the other amendments. The proposed qualification in amendment No. 156 is not contained in existing statutory powers to charge for the removal, storage and disposal of vehicles. The existing powers are contained in section 102 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the Removal, Storage and Disposal of Vehicles (Prescribed Sums and Charges, etc.) Regulations 1989. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was the Minister at the time.

Christopher Chope: I was not.

David Jamieson: It must have been just after that time. However, those powers were, of course, brought in at the time of the Government the hon. Gentleman supported, and he was a Member of Parliament then and might have even voted for them. The existing powers to charge relate to the police, county councils and metropolitan district councils. The regime works well. The primary burden of responsibility for a vehicle rests with its registered keeper. That applies with all road traffic offences, including the abandonment of a vehicle, which is a major problem, particularly in urban areas. It is for the keeper to insure against any costs or liabilities associated with their vehicle, and to take due care of it.
 The amendment would transfer costs from vehicle keepers to the public sector. One could call it a stealth tax. For example, the taxpayer would carry the burden of cost in cases in which vehicles are abandoned but the culprits are not identified or convicted. Shifting that burden to the taxpayer is unacceptable. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Christchurch thinks that the taxpayer should pay, so that people can fecklessly abandon their vehicles, which they do. It would prove to be a major loophole for those who seek to avoid the cost of disposing of their vehicles in a proper manner. We only have to look in our constituencies or at the roads coming in to London to see that there are plenty such vehicles around. They place a cost on the public sector, which we should retrieve from vehicle keepers where possible.

Christopher Chope: The Minister addressed amendment No. 156 as though it refers to all abandoned and dumped vehicles, but I was referring to stolen vehicles. Does he say that if items of our property are stolen and then recovered by the police, the police should be able to charge us for their storage in police custody and impose a penalty fee for their recovery? How is that consistent with the additional penalties that the Government propose to impose on the perpetrators of crime?

David Jamieson: I feel some sympathy for people whose vehicles are stolen, and who retrieve them only to find that they have been damaged or destroyed. That is why we insure our vehicles, but circumstances when such things happen are not happy ones. Nevertheless, it is for vehicle keepers to take care of and insure their vehicle; it is not proper that that burden should fall on the public.
 If the public purse were to fork out in all cases of abandoned or stolen vehicles, how many more vehicles would be ''stolen''? The way to get rid of one's car would be to park it in a road and report it stolen. The public purse would then pay for it to be taken away at no small cost. The cost of removing abandoned vehicles is substantial. We are reviewing motor insurance, and I have sympathy for people who find themselves in such circumstances, but it is not right to place the burden on the taxpayer. That would encourage more and more people fecklessly to abandon their vehicles.

Christopher Chope: In the spirit of compromise, will the Minister consider an amendment limited to cases in which the police move a vehicle in order to carry out scientific tests on it for the detection of crime?

David Jamieson: If the hon. Gentleman tables further amendments during the Bill's later stages, the Government will, of course, examine them carefully.
 I move on to amendment No. 157. Broken down, damaged and abandoned vehicles are a safety hazard, particularly on motorways and high-speed roads. It is essential to the safety of their occupants and other road users that such vehicles are moved quickly. Hard shoulders of motorways and verges on dual carriageways are dangerous places. There are far too many fatalities and serious accidents involving 
 stranded vehicles, which is why people are advised to leave their vehicles and move away from the hard shoulder in such circumstances. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 sets out a framework that allows the police to remove vehicles in those circumstances. The framework generally works well, and the regulations made under sections 99 to 102 set out the circumstances and charges that apply for removal and disposal of vehicles. The Bill will extend those powers to the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales, operating through traffic officers, and will enable the correction of minor anomalies involving the disposal of vehicles after removal. 
 The RAC and other recovery organisations are concerned, as was said on Second Reading, that the Highways Agency might either set up its own recovery service in competition, or remove broken down vehicles in an aggressive or restrictive way, which would damage recovery organisations' ability to provide a service for their members. I reaffirm the assurance given on Second Reading that that is not our intention. Breakdown organisations, which do a good job on our roads and make a valued contribution to safety, will be able to attend to members who break down on motorways and trunk roads as they currently do. The Highways Agency will seek to work with the breakdown industry to improve further the way in which such breakdowns are dealt with. 
 Broken down vehicles represent a safety hazard, as statistics sadly demonstrate, and they cause congestion. It is vital that traffic officers are able to remove a stationary vehicle. The amendments would constrain the ability of a traffic officer, who will have become experienced in assessing such situations, by granting new rights to drivers and breakdown organisations. That could result in the dangerous situation wherein the removal of a broken down vehicle from a hazardous location was delayed while discussions were held about how long it would take the breakdown organisation, or a friend or relative of the driver, to attend. That would be unacceptable for all concerned. 
 I fully understand the concerns of recovery organisations and their members not to be subjected to over-zealous removal by the authorities, but that is not what we want to happen. The best recovery organisations, of which there are several, provide an excellent service for their members, and we want that to continue.

John Thurso: Is there any current contract in which a charge is made for the removal of vehicles?

David Jamieson: Yes. The police have standing contracts with breakdown organisations to remove vehicles in their areas. In some cases, the person in the car is charged for that service. The police do not take that on lightly; they do not want to do it regularly. However, there are extreme cases, such as, for example the case when someone is not a member of one of the national organisations. I was involved in a case in which the national organisation was so bogged down with severe weather one evening that a breakdown organisation was called in to tow vehicles out of a flooded road. It was just by chance that the organisation was present to pull vehicles out of the
 flood and a charge was made, including to me because my car was one of those involved.
 There will be cases in which traffic officers will have to act to remove a vehicle in the interests of safety or because it is causing unacceptable congestion. It would be bizarre to compromise safety by requiring the traffic officer to hold a discussion with the driver before taking action.

Christopher Chope: Is the Minister thereby guaranteeing that traffic officers will not discount the option of using a roadside recovery operation, except in cases where it compromises safety or unreasonably impedes traffic flow?

David Jamieson: What the police do now, if they see somebody broken down or are called or attracted to the scene—perhaps a woman is on her own—is attend and ask whether the person has called one of the emergency organisations. They obtain an idea of how long that person needs to be attended to, and assess the risk for that person of being in that location. In such circumstances, I envisage that the traffic officer would make that assessment. In some cases, it may be a matter of pulling the person off the road and putting them in a place of safety such a lay-by, for which there may be no charge. Officers would use good sense in removing vehicles, just as the police do now. They have no intention of routinely moving people about the road.
 I can think of an incident in which I came off the motorway and a police Land Rover towed me back on to the road and set me on my way. I had skidded on a very muddy and wet road, as did a number of other vehicles. The police towed us all off and got us moving again. That is the type of circumstance in which the police would take that action. However, if my vehicle had not been mobile, it would have been quite proper for the police to tow me off the road, take me to a place of safety and charge me. There would have been no time to call the AA, of which I am a member, to attend the incident. 
 On the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East, I think that a traffic management forum to produce a code of practice could be a little over-burdensome. To single out the recovery industry for a code of practice would be inappropriate when the current arrangements are working extremely well.

Brian White: Is my hon. Friend aware of the discussions that the RAC had with Transport for London and the forum that was created, as a result of which breakdown vehicles were able to avoid the congestion charge and improve their recovery within London? Would a similar thing happen after the discussions that such a forum would provide?

David Jamieson: I shall certainly consider whether a forum can be created, and if discussions can improve matters, we shall do so. We have regular discussions with the motoring organisations, as my hon. Friend will know. We are always considering how to improve those discussions and protocols and the way in which we work together. I shall take careful note of what my hon. Friend said.

Christopher Chope: I do not know whether it was an oversight, or because the Minister was so generous in giving way to me, but he did not respond to the argument on amendment No. 158 about the issue of charges. I got the impression that he was about to move on to that when he kindly gave way. If he does not wish to say anything about charges, I shall be concerned, because I thought that there were some strong arguments on the matter.

David Jamieson: I was just being mindful of the time. On amendment No. 158, the charges for removing a vehicle have been set in regulations since 1984. There are a number of factors to be considered in setting charges, other than the prevailing rate of membership of a recovery organisation. We shall consult openly with the representatives of the recovery organisations during the development of those necessary regulations, and I have asked the Highways Agency to put together a working group to begin work on the matter.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 7.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 157, in 
page 5, line 7, at end add— 
 '(2A) When exercising any powers made under provisions referred to in subsection (1), and before arranging for the removal of a broken-down vehicle, a traffic officer shall grant the driver of the vehicle, where present, a reasonable opportunity to contact a breakdown organisation of their choice and if that organisation confirms to the traffic officer that it will attend the broken-down vehicle as soon as practicable, then the traffic officer shall allow that organisation a reasonable period in which to attend the aforesaid vehicle.'.—[Mr. Chope.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 7.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 - Offences

David Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in
page 5, line 12, leave out '51' and insert '104'.

Nigel Beard: With this we may discuss the following amendments:
 No. 15, in 
page 5, line 12, leave out '(or both)'.
 No. 16, in 
page 5, line 16, leave out '51' and insert '26'.
 No. 17, in 
page 5, line 17, leave out '(or both)'.
 No. 18, in 
page 5, line 25, leave out '51' and insert '52'.
 No. 19, in 
page 5, line 26, leave out '(or both)'.
 No. 82, in 
page 5, line 33, at end insert— 
 '(5A) If at the time a person obstructs, resists or disobeys a traffic officer that officer does not have authority for his actions, then the subsequent granting to him of such authority will not thereby create or make the said persons obstruction, resisting or disobeying amount to an offence.'.

David Wilshire: I had a hand in amendments Nos. 14 to 19. I shall be brief, because collectively they cover a small number of points. In no particular order, three of the amendments would delete the words ''or both'' after the provisions relating to a fine or imprisonment. I am interested to hear the Minister's explanation of why the words ''or both'' are justified. It seems to me that one penalty or the other would be adequate.
 Two of the amendments would change the number of weeks from 51 to 26 or 52. I just think that the period should be six months or a year. Fifty-one weeks bothers me. Why not make it 52 weeks or a year? Then we would all know where we stood. I do not need to labour the point, but I should be interested to hear the Minister's explanation. 
 One issue is perhaps more substantial. Amendment No. 14 would change 51 weeks to 104. That is more than a tidying-up exercise. It is not a case of changing 51 weeks to 52 and calling it a year, but again I had a choice. Under clause 10(2), a person who ''resists or wilfully obstructs'' a traffic officer is liable to be sent to prison for 51 weeks, but if 51 weeks is suitable for someone who wilfully obstructs, a person who assaults a traffic officer under clause 10(1) should go to prison for longer. I am curious why the same sentence applies for both obstructing and assaulting. I think that the Minister will agree that a person who beats someone up deserves a great deal more than if one who just sits down in the road or is somewhat cussed.

David Jamieson: Amendments Nos. 14, 16 and 18 would adjust the maximum terms of imprisonment that may be imposed for offences under clause 10. In specifying those terms, we had regard to the new Home Office policy on magistrates court sentencing powers, as provided for in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. We do not want any departure from that. The new sentencing regime is designed to provide that, eventually, all imprisonable summary offences should carry a maximum term of imprisonment of 51 weeks.
 An offender sentenced to a 51-week term would be released on licence after not less than two and not more than 13 weeks followed by a licence period during which the offender would be obliged to comply with the requirement specified by the court, such as a supervision requirement.
 Amendments Nos. 15, 17 and 19 would prevent the relevant offences to which they relate from carrying the possibility of both a term of imprisonment and a fine being imposed. In determining the appropriate penalties, we followed the example of section 46 of the Police Reform Act 2002, which permits both such penalties being imposed in similar offences against community support officers. We therefore hope that the Committee will agree that the lesser penalty for offences against traffic officers is not desirable and so see no reason to depart from it. 
 Amendment No. 82 is unnecessary as the subsequent designation or other empowerment of a traffic officer would not have the retrospective effect that it fears.

David Wilshire: I am grateful to the Minister. I find most of that explanation helpful; it is on the record, and we know why what is being done is being done. The one issue that the Minister did not pick up, on which I shall not press him now, though I would be grateful if he would indicate that he will give further thought to it between now and Report, is that assault is more serious than obstruction. That matter requires more reflection than we can give it at half-past 5 in the afternoon.

David Jamieson: The maximum sentence set out in the Bill is in accordance with other Acts. That matter needs to be rehearsed elsewhere. The type and length of sentence is entirely up to the courts, which will, of course, reflect the seriousness of the offence.

David Wilshire: I hear what the Minister says. I simply repeat that I hope he will reflect to see whether there is any way we can do something. I do not wish to press the matter to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in
page 5, line 31, leave out 
 'whom the traffic officer reasonably believes to have been' 
 and insert 'who was'.

Nigel Beard: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Government amendment No. 62. 
 Amendment No. 82, in 
page 5, line 33, at end insert— 
 '(5A) If at the time a person obstructs, resists or disobeys a traffic officer that officer does not have authority for his actions, then the subsequent granting to him of such authority will not thereby create or make the said persons obstruction, resisting or disobeying amount to an offence.'.
 Amendment No. 22, in 
page 5, line 34, leave out subsection (6).

David Wilshire: Amendment No. 21 has some substance. Clause 10(5) specifies what happens when traffic officers have reason to believe that someone was
 driving a vehicle, and it gives them too much power; the traffic officer needs to be clear that the person was driving before he can demand information. The Minister may wish to answer the point now, but my feeling is that we shall need to return to the issue on Report when we can do it some justice, because it is more than a minor matter, but that is what is going through my mind.

David Jamieson: The term ''reasonably believes'' is consistent with precedents—in the Road Traffic Act 1988, for example. The purpose of amendment No. 62 is to add to the circumstances in which a traffic officer is empowered to require a driver to give their name and address. Currently, clause 10(4) makes it an offence for a person not to give their name and address to a traffic officer where a driver fails to comply with a traffic officer's direction. Amendment No. 62 makes it also an offence where a driver fails to comply with traffic signs placed by a traffic officer.

David Wilshire: I hear what the Minister says. I have no comment on the Government amendment. I feel strongly about amendment No. 21; I see where the safeguards are. On the other hand, it would not be a good use of the Committee's time to divide on the amendment, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment made: No. 62, in 
page 5, line 32, leave out from 'with' to end of line 33 and insert '— 
 (a) a direction given in relation to that vehicle under a power conferred by section (Powers to stop or direct traffic), or 
 (b) the indication given by a traffic sign placed under a power conferred by section 7.'.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
 Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Uniform

David Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in
page 5, line 41, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.
 I could speak at some length about the amendment, and had looked forward to doing so, because the implication of the clause is there could be a free-for-all when the Minister becomes converted to the idea of privatisation. A number of authorities will contract out the service, and I should hate to think that we were giving them an opportunity to compete with each other for the most garish uniform. They might even decide to sell advertisements on the backs or fronts of the jackets if we had no control.

David Wright: That is the market.

David Wilshire: Some things about the market are more acceptable than others. I shall be happy to have a lengthy debate if the hon. Gentleman would like one.
 One principle of contracting out and privatisation is that one writes the contracts that one wants. It does not necessarily affect the market if I—the person contracting with somebody else for that person to provide, in that name, the service that I want—say that I want that person to look smart and tidy, not garish. That does not undermine anything to do with the free 
 market. If the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) would like a little lesson in free market economics, I shall be in the Strangers Bar later, and I shall be happy to oblige him or any member of the Labour party who needs help in the course of the evening; some of them might. 
 The Minister should give some thought to saying that the national authority ''must'' specify the uniform, or else we could have a proliferation of uniforms, and confusion among the public.

David Jamieson: We do want consistency of uniforms. There was a feeling that some flexibility in certain circumstances might be appropriate. However, I have news for the hon. Gentleman. We are prepared to consider the matter, as there is some merit in his argument.

David Wilshire: It would be unfair of me not to say to the Minister that I am not just grateful to him for being so persuaded, but gobsmacked. It just goes to show that if one writes enough amendments, one or two of them will be sensible.

David Jamieson: We are a listening Government; we always listen to good ideas, wherever they come from.

David Wilshire: With great enthusiasm, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 - Power to charge for traffic officer services provided on request

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Greg Knight: We have misgivings about the clause, as the Minister knows from a private chat that I had with him and his officials some time ago. There seems to be an unfairness about it. It states that
''The appropriate national authority may, at the request of any person, agree to arrange for the services of a traffic officer to be provided . . . subject to the payment of a charge.''
 I think that the clause envisages dealing with the organisers of special events, such as the recent Robbie Williams concert at Knebworth, after which those who had been to hear the singer perform found themselves stuck in traffic for five or six hours while seeking to leave the area. Clearly, chaos resulted from that pop concert. 
 However, if, under the clause, a responsible organiser, realising that the tickets are selling like hot cakes and that many people are likely to arrive in vehicles, alerts the local police, what does he get for his pains? He gets a bill for the services of the traffic officers who come along to manage the traffic. 
 Conversely, the fly-by-night concert promoter who plans a one-off event in an area decides not to bother because he knows that a bill may follow if he requests the assistance of traffic officers. He goes ahead with his concert without any assistance, and his profits are bigger because he does not have to pay the fee, even 
 though the chaos and disruption to members of the public and those attending the event is far greater. 
 There is injustice in that, and the clause may also break a principle in asking a private person to pay for the services provided by a police officer or someone acting in that role—a traffic officer, for example—on the highway. 
 The wording of the clause is strange: 
''The appropriate national authority may, at the request of any person, agree to arrange for the services of a traffic officer to be provided to that person''.
 Those, and not ''to be provided on the highway'' are the words, so what does the Minister envisage? If a promoter is having an event that requires traffic management on the highway and in the margins of the car park on private land, will traffic officers manage the traffic on both the highway and the land hired by the promoter? It could be inferred from the clause that the traffic officer could discharge his duties on private land as well as the highway, so will the Minister clarify the situation? If that is not the intention, why does the clause not refer merely to the traffic officer being provided to manage traffic on the public highway?

David Jamieson: The simple answer is that the services supplied to the person for a special event such as a concert would be provided to them as the event organiser. Traffic officers would operate as the police do now—the police may also charge for a special event—and would be involved only on the highway
 and in matters relating to the throughput of traffic on the highway.
 The clause should be welcomed as it benefits the organisers of large events, who have no commercial interest in chaos outside their events because people will either turn away or not come back the next time. It is in their commercial interest to ensure that roads are clear and that traffic flows properly. The clause provides for negotiation and for traffic officers to make a charge for the services that they provide on the motorway or trunk road network. 
 Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 13 to 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Gillian Merron.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Six o'clock till Thursday 29 January at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock.